Redesigned Kalanka Bay hotel in Delimara approved by Planning Authority

The Planning Authority has given the green light to the redesign of an already approved 17-room hotel overlooking Kalanka Bay in Delimara.

The new designs put forward by the developer propose lower structures and a further set back from the cliffs that what was approved in 2018. However, the new design takes up more land for the construction of two bungalows.

The re-designed project was approved by eight votes to three, with those voting against expressing concern over the additional land take-up.

The permit was approved with a condition proposed by chairman Emmanuel Camilleri calling for more landscaping and the reduction of the height of rubble walls surrounding the proposed hotel from 3m to 1.7m.

NGO representative Romano Cassar welcomed changes to the design of the original permit, which he insisted should never have been issued. But he also called for the removal of the two easternmost bungalows. 

Cassar eventually voted against as did Environment and Resources Authority representative Aimee Brincat and board member Mario Bonello.

PA chairperson Emmanuel Camilleri praised the design of the project and welcomed the 9.5m setback from the foreshore and the lowering of height.

However, he saw scope for improvement as regards the lateral extension of the hotel, and the take-up of fresh land. 

Much of the discussion focused on possible design changes to minimise the take up of new land especially with regards to two bungalows protruding into undeveloped land.

Some board members proposed increasing the height on the easternmost part of the project in a way that two bungalows could be fitted on top of each other. But project architect Chris Briffa insisted that this could defeat the aim of reducing the height and massing of the project. 

Briffa said the outright removal of two bungalows would undermine the feasibility of the entire project.

In his presentation, applicant and landowner Kenneth Abela insisted that his project is a “holistic one” based on the ‘farm to fork’ concept. He already sells agricultural produce from surrounding land he owns in an area previously occupied by trappers and hunters.

Abela also insisted that the new design of the hotel better reflects this concept.

His architect also described the development as an “eco-hotel” with the design meant to integrate the hotel more into the landscape.

“Today we have the opportunity to mitigate the impact of the building on such a beautiful site,” Briffa said. He described the rooms of the proposed hotel as “cabins integrated in the landscape” with volumes being broken down. This aim was reached by pushing back the hotel from the cliffs.

He acknowledged that the hotel will spread over a larger area but insisted that the volumes of the hotel have been reduced significantly retaining the same number of rooms (17).

But Briffa denied the project’s footprint will increase.

“It is not true that the footprint will increase if you take into account the gaps between the different buildings,” he said.

Briffa also made clear that the project will include no beach amenities which may impact on public access to the bay but will include a reorganised carpark for the public.

Nobody attending the public hearing objected to the proposal.

Daniel Zerafa from the Marsaxlokk council, which had even approved the original application welcomed the proposed changes.

The case officer deemed the changes to the yet to be constructed hotel as “acceptable” since they do not entail “any additional visual impact”.

The building is to rise on the derelict structures of a smaller hotel dating back to the 1950s. 

The existing built-up footprint of the old hotel covers an area of 343sq.m which was increased to 561sq.m in plans approved in 2018.

Through the latest changes the built-up footprint of the hotel will increase to 675sq.m (including the space between the semi-detached cabins). The 2018 permit also foresaw hard landscaping for terraces, ramps and a swimming pool over 480sq.m which will now increase to 588sq.m, mostly on land already disturbed by the 1950s development.

The proposal involves the shifting of accommodation facilities from the main building to stand-alone cabins on the east of the site, and an extension of excavations to the west of the site for the relocation of the underground spa facilities.

The existing informal public parking area (1,856 m2) will be reorganised and landscaped. 

ERA acknowledged that improvements have been made to the development in particular with respect to massing, design, the colouring scheme of the buildings and overall landscape impact. But the authority expressed concerns about the lateral expansion of development, beyond the previously approved footprint.

“Though improvements have been made, these are not considered sufficient to offset ERA’s environmental concerns that had already been raised vis-à-vis the previous proposal,” the environmental watchdog concluded in a report published earlier this year.

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