Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1544052
6 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 25 MARCH 2026 NEWS JAMES DEBONO jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt Post/s of Part-Time One (1) or Two (2) Research Support Officer II Project LinSol – "Novel Linear Solar Water Hea ng System for Mediterranean and similar Climates" Funded by the Energy and Water Agency (EWA) under the Research and Innova on in projects in the Fields of Energy and Water- EWA-Call 2024-Stage 2 Programme – EWA 524/25/2 and any other projects undertaken by the Ins tute for Sustainable Energy. For further informa on visit: www.um.edu.mt/hrmd/recruitment/projects CALL FOR APPLICATIONS Call ID: 40/2026 Deadline: 30 March 2026 Planning officials recommend refusal of 55-unit Marsaskala rooftop extension PLANNING officials are recom- mending the refusal of a large- scale vertical extension to the Lay Lay Blocks in Marsaskala, a proposal that would increase the height of an existing residential complex from 4 to 8 levels. In a noteworthy assessment, the case officer placed par- ticular emphasis on parking shortfalls and the cumulative density impacts — issues often raised in objections but less frequently forming the main basis for refusal. The case, application PA/03995/23, is scheduled to be decided by the Planning Commission on April 20, 2026. The outline application, sub- mitted by Michael Axisa's Lay Lay Block, seeks permission to add 55 new residential units on top of the existing four-sto- rey block located along Triq in-Nadur, Triq l-Orangjo, Triq l-Ghassies and Triq Vittorio Cassar. The proposal involves con- structing 20 apartments at third-floor level, 17 units at a partly recessed fourth floor, 12 to 14 units at a partly recessed fifth floor, and six additional units at a recessed top level. The scheme would also in- troduce four lifts and connect- ing bridges within the internal courtyard to serve the addi- tional dwellings. The develop- ment would increase the height of the existing building from 4 to 8 levels. Planning officers acknowl- edge that, in principle, the pro- posed height — reaching ap- proximately 22 metres — falls within the allowable limits for the area. The stepped mass- ing, setbacks and façade design were also deemed acceptable and in line with policy require- ments, with the architectural approach replicating the low- er floors. The individual units were considered compliant with minimum dwelling size standards and design guide- lines. However, the Development Management Directorate con- cluded that the scale of inten- sification would significantly increase residential density without adequate supporting infrastructure. The report highlights that the addition of 55 units would gen- erate a requirement for at least 63 on-site parking spaces. No parking is being provided with- in the site, which already lacks parking for existing residents. The officer stressed that this shortfall runs counter to De- velopment Control policy P18, particularly in an already dense residential area with high park- ing demand. Concerns were also raised regarding refuse management. The proposed refuse areas lo- cated near the main entrances were considered inadequate for a development of this mag- nitude and likely to negatively affect existing residents. Policy P46 requires a comprehensive refuse solution for high-den- sity developments, which the report states have not been sat- isfactorily addressed. This recommendation is par- ticularly significant because refusal is being proposed pri- marily on the basis of parking shortfalls and the cumulative density impacts of the devel- opment. While the proposal was found acceptable in terms of height, design and zoning, planning officials conclud- ed that the intensity of devel- opment, combined with the absence of supporting infra- structure, would undermine residential amenity in the sur- rounding area. Numerous public representa- tions also objected to the pro- posal, citing height, volume transition and parking pres- sures. The case officer therefore recommended refusal on two main grounds: the absence of adequate parking provision and the lack of a viable refuse man- agement strategy, both seen as conflicting with policies aimed at protecting urban amenity. Lay Lay Blocks in Marsaskala