Penthouses: when words are not enough

BACKGROUND Penthouse policy to be re-considered - the re-consideration of building policies enacted by Mario de Marco's predecessor George Pullicino.

In April 2005, new policy guidelines were put in place, allowing penthouses to be built on third storeys and 'set-back' third floors on small houses in towns' inner cores.

In the last article he penned before his untimely death, my colleague Julian Manduca foresaw what was going to happen: "it would seem the construction industry is in for a field day: more construction in urban areas, more dust, noise and disturbance that assures Malta remains in a 'not ready' state."

Moreover this policy blocked access to sunlight for people interested in investing in renewable energy sources.

Persons who would have invested in solar heaters and photovoltaics had to give up their plans when they discovered that a neighbour was adding an extra storey thus blocking their access to sunlight. Others already found their roof occupied by a penthouse.

Unfortunately the Gonzi administration between 2004 and 2008 actively assisted a building boom which had a negative impact on our landscape and created an over supply of property which weighs heavily on our economy.

In fact the relaxation of building heights coincided with the rush to recycle monies kept hidden from the tax authorities, right on the eve of the adoption of the euro.

Relaxing building heights in such a situation bordered on economic madness, as it was bound to create an over-supply of property in a country were so many properties are vacant.

The SPED document issued for public consultation by the Ministry for the Environment reflects the criticism made by environmentalists against both the relaxation of building heights and the extension of building boundaries.

Another document (Malta's National Efficiency Action Plan) stipulates that by 2013 developers will have to leave 50% of the roof area of any new building unencumbered for the installation of Renewable Energy Sources buildings. Unfortunately the document seems to point towards action after and not before the next election.

But would it not make greater sense if this particular policy on penthouses is revised immediately prior to the next election.

Ideally the new structure plan should be approved before the election. But it  is extremely doubtful whether this would be possible.

Reversing the policy on penthouses would show that the government change of heart is meaningful not just a set of good intentions. 

Minister De Marco should be praised for issuing documents which make lots of sense.  But it is time for something a bit more tangible.

Reversing the penthouse policy now would also serve as safeguard against a electoral rush for such permits. The risk is that now that property owners know that the policy is going to change, they might be tempted to apply for a permit before the goalposts are changed.

Although I suspect that this time round MEPA will be more reluctant to issue permits which anger residents especially in certain districts, pressures by developers are also bound to increase.

Moreover such a decision would clip the wings of any future government, which could be tempted to kick-start the economy by relying on yet another housing boom.