The Environmental Impact Assessment for the Jerma redevelopment says plainly what the drawings have suggested for some time: the proposed blocks would stand higher than both the old hotel and St Thomas Tower, and the tower would lose some of the space that lets it read as a landmark rather than an ornament.
According to the assessment published by the Environment and Resources Authority, Jerma Development Ltd is seeking to build two eight-storey blocks reaching 32 metres above sea level on the abandoned Marsaskala site. The former Jerma Palace Hotel reached 25.5 metres. St Thomas Tower is about 23 metres high. The report describes the effect on the tower’s setting as a “moderate adverse impact” and identifies visual change from five viewpoints, including Triq is-Salini and Munxar Hill.
That matters because height here is not just an architectural argument. A tower built for defence keeps its authority partly through what surrounds it. Once a larger private mass sits behind it, the old stone survives, but in a different role. Malta is full of heritage left standing while its scale is quietly revoked.
The report does not stop at the skyline. It says construction is expected to take four years and involve excavation of up to 30,000 cubic metres of rock, with a risk to unrecorded Roman-period remains. It recommends a 50-metre buffer around the tower and vibration monitoring. It also says existing water and sewerage systems are insufficient for the projected demand, and estimates 347 additional peak-hour vehicle trips. Residents in Triq Dawret it-Torri could face noise above 65 decibels. Demolition, the assessment adds, could have a major adverse impact on bats roosting in the derelict building, while artificial lighting could disturb breeding seabirds in nearby protected marine areas.
There are public gains in the file as well: 13,600 square metres of open space, better foreshore access and the pedestrianisation of part of Triq is-Salini. But the central public decision was made earlier, in the 2021 development brief that allowed 26,000 square metres of residential development on a site previously framed mainly for tourism.
That is the consequential question beneath the photomontages. If the state decides that a failed hotel site should become a much larger residential project, what exactly is the price of the extra buildable room — and who is expected to pay it in traffic, infrastructure and the diminished scale of a coastal landmark?
Sophia Borg 
Harvey Jr. 
Marcus Azzopardi