A proposed extension to an early 20th century block of flats on Sliema’s Tower Road has been shot down by the cultural heritage watchdog, which has deemed the construction of 10 additional apartments as “unacceptable”.

The property, known as Brittania Flats, is located on the popular seafront road, cornering both Amery Street and Luzju Street.

It is an early 20th century apartment block and one of the few older Tower Road buildings that has remained untouched through the years.

In its review of the application, the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage 'notes with concern that the proposed design is unacceptable'

But this could all change if an application for the construction of an additional six storeys is approved by the Planning Authority. The applicants want to build additional levels on the existing airspace that would accommodate 10 apartments.

A previous application to develop the property had been withdrawn.

In its review of the application, the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage “notes with concern that the proposed design is unacceptable”.

“The proposed extension is not compatible with the existing building. While this office is not averse to a modern addition, the proposed extension needs to have the same building rhythm, alignment and a complementary design to the existing structure,” it said.

The superintendence does not have the power to stop an application from being approved by the authority although its views are often taken into consideration by the case officer deciding whether it should be recommended for approval.

Heritage organisation Din l-Art Ħelwa has also objected to the development, echoing the watchdog’s concerns that the proposed addition would not follow “the scale and rhythm of this important street. This height is completely excessive and incongruent with the surrounding context,” the organisation said.

Similar concerns were raised by Sliema residents who live in the vicinity of Brittania Flats. Several pointed out that the proposed height would breach sanitary rules and invade their privacy as the building would overlook their own.

This is not the first attempt at developing the building. An application had been submitted in 2016 proposing similar extensions, although in that case the applicants wanted to add five floors to house five apartments.

That application was withdrawn by the applicant after the case officer recommended that it be refused.

In a final report, the case officer had said the decision was taken “in view of sanitary considerations and design issues” and also pointed to concerns flagged by the superintendence at the time.

As with the latest application, heritage organisations and residents had also objected to the extension.