Local Plan heights are consistent with the SPED

A 2017 planning application contemplating the demolition of a building in order to pave the way for a complex of apartments was turned down by the Planning Commission. The site in question is located in Triq San Guzepp Hamrun. In its decision, the Commission held as follows:

The proposed height of development ran counter to Urban Objectives 2.3 and 2.4 of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development (SPED) which promote a context driven approach for the control of building heights within Urban Conservation Areas in order to protect the traditional urban skyline;

The proposal was in breach of policies P35 and P39 of the Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards 2015 which require that building heights are based on a streetscape analysis in order not to create an unacceptable visual impact;

The proposed development was not compliant with Urban Objectives 2 and 4 of the Strategic Plan for Environment since it was incompatible with the urban design and environmental characteristics of the Urban Conservation Area;

In reaction, applicant appealed the decision before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, insisting that permission should have been granted. In his appeal submissions, applicant (now, appellant) argued that the proposed building envelope was compliant with the provisions of the Local Plan, which stipulates a maximum height limitation of three floors. Appellant went on to state that the Local Plan was consistent with the SPED objectives.

It was further argued that the proposed designs were in line with policies P35 and P39 of the Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards 2015. The Tribunal was reminded that the Authority had approved similar development in the immediate vicinity, thus amounting to ‘legal commitment’ according to law.  Furthermore, applicant stressed that the existing façade was to be retained whereas the new floors were designed to complement its aesthetics.   On this basis, the Commission was wrong to conclude that the proposal would obliterate the visual characteristics of the area. In his final comments, appellant maintained that his proposal was tantamount to positive urban regeneration.

In reply, the case officer counter argued that the current policy framework clearly required a context driven approach ‘that is respectful to the UCA character of the area and to the fact that the adjacent area is a design priority area as stated in the Central Malta Local Plan’. The planning commission had, in fact,  observed that the setback from the facade was less than that of the committed adjacent properties, hence no setback floor should be allowed. Were it to be approved, the proposal would visually dominate the adjacent properties ‘which lie along the same building block and not directly opposite’. To make matters worse, ‘the impact was rendered more acute by the fact that the architect was utilising a higher terrain as a baseline for the proposed development with a complete disregard to established design principles’.

In is assessment, the Tribunal observed that the Commission had held that  ‘there are other buildings in line with the height limitation being proposed’. The Tribunal also referred to a recent decision involving a certain Pauline Milli where the set height limitations were held to be consistent with the objectives of the SPED. For this reason, the Tribunal conceded that the proposed building envelope was in line with the set height limitations and thus ordered the Authority to issue the permit.