Two new applications in Marsaskala seek permission to carry out works intended for the service of the proposed fast ferry. No complete plans have been presented to the general public. Moreover, the system of splitting applications as well as making use of permits issued to carry out road works is done to make it more difficult for individuals to understand the huge negative impact that these works will have on the locality, apart from making it almost impossible to object to most of the intended works.
This non-ending urban sprawl in our village reaching into our only breathing space - THE SEA - is destroying the character of our village, overloading the infrastructure, and eating into our wellbeing.
We urge everyone to object to these applications and defend Marsaskala Bay from commercialisation.
You may wish to copy the objection text below and send your representations to representations@pa.org.mt by 14th November 2025. You will need to send two separate emails one for each application using the same text but with a different subject title as follows:
1. Objection to PA/6645/25 – Change of use from quay area below promenade to ferry landing waiting area and construction of access ramp.
2. Objection to PA/6646/25 – Dredging works at Marsaskala Bay.
******
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am submitting my objection to the planning application in the subject title taking into consideration both PA/6645/25 (ferry landing waiting area and ramp construction) and PA/6646/25 (dredging at Marsaskala Bay), since the proposed works involved in both submitted planning applications are interconnected. These proposals are deeply concerning due to their environmental, visual, social, and procedural shortcomings. I urge the Planning Authority to refuse or defer these applications until proper assessments and public consultation are conducted. The reasons for objection are as follows:
1. Visual and Aesthetic Impact (PA/6645/25)
The application lacks visual impact studies and proper drawings. The ramp would intrude on a prominent coastal area, degrading its openness and character. This contradicts:
- SPED Coastal Objective CO3, which protects recreational coastal areas.
- Visual Simulation Guidelines (2015) requiring verified photomontages for coastal developments.
2. Environmental and Archaeological Impact (PA/6646/25)
Dredging poses serious threats such as:
- Destruction of protected Posidonia meadows, affecting biodiversity, water quality, and coastal erosion.
- Risk to underwater archaeological remains documented in 1993, preserved thanks to Posidonia beds.
No EIA, habitat mapping, ecological assessment, archaeological desk-based assessment or marine survey appears to have been submitted with these applications. The proposed work violates:
- SPED CO1, the EIA Regulations, EU Habitats Directive, and the Cultural Heritage Act.
3. Project Splitting and Interdependence
The ramp and dredging are functionally dependent yet submitted as separate applications. This undermines transparency and violates:
- Article 72(2) of the Development Planning Act, requiring cumulative impact assessment.
4. Lack of Social and Traffic Assessments
No Social Impact Assessment (SIA) or Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) is provided, despite potential disruption to bathers, fishers, and increased traffic in a dense area. This contradicts:
- SPED Urban Objective UO 3.7, prioritising social cohesion and quality of life.
5. Foreshore and Public Access
The proposals reduce access to the public foreshore and displace recreational users. This breaches:
- The Public Domain Act (public use of the first 15m of coast),
- SPED CO3, and
- SMCO 05 of the South Malta Local Plan, which protects scarce bathing areas.
6. Transparency and Procedural Fairness
Applications lack essential documentation, public consultation, and impact studies. This fails to meet Malta’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention on access to information and public participation.
I therefore request that:
1. Both applications be refused or deferred pending:
- Full EIA
- Marine ecological and archaeological surveys
- Verified visual impact assessments
- Social and traffic impact assessments
- Guarantees of public access and biodiversity protection
2. The applications be treated as a single, unified project due to their interdependence.
Marsaskala Bay is a valued public and ecological space. These proposals threaten its future and fail to meet policy obligations.
Please keep me informed of any updates, amendments, hearings or decisions related to these applications.
