Delimara hotel may get one-storey haircut but extended footprint

Less imposing design reduces hotel height but extends footprint over larger area

The proposed Delimara Hotel: as originally proposed (top) and under the latest 2021 plans (below)
The proposed Delimara Hotel: as originally proposed (top) and under the latest 2021 plans (below)

Landowner Kenneth Abela is seeking modifications to plans for a hotel development approved in 2018 that will replace the old derelict hotel building overlooking the Kalanka beach.

The latest plans foresee a larger footprint over the site than the approved permit, but the building itself will be one storey lower, respecting the contours of the bay.  The hotel will also be receded further away from the cliff-face.

A project development statement by ADI Consultants stated that architect Chris Briffa had “considered geo-technical issues by receding the hotel away from the cliff face.”

The controversial hotel replaces a derelict hotel built in the 1950s, and was approved in an Area of High Landscape Value and Area of Ecological Importance despite objections by the Environment and Resources Authority, whose chairman Victor Axiak had voted against the development.

The development is described as an “ecological boutique hotel” of 17 luxury suites and 1 presidential suite. Its amenities include a restaurant, beach bar, underground spa and outdoor pool. While the proposal envisages an increase of one room over what was approved in 2018, the restaurant areas have been decreased by over 40%.

The new application foresees extending landscaped areas to rooftops and terraces and removing the lower basement level, resulting in a reduction in the overall height level.

The main difference between the approved development and the new proposal is in breaking down the mass of the four-storey structure into a series of detached, cabin- like guest rooms with open spaces of vegetation and undergrowth integrating with the surrounding landscape. Overall the hotel’s gross floor area will be reduced from 2,950sq.m to 2,600sq.m.

The Superintendence for Cultural Heritage described the proposal as “more acceptable” in terms of its spatial relation to the open areas than the one approved in 2018. The ERA is awaiting the results of more studies before commenting on the latest plans.