[ANALYSIS] Labour’s choice: Enriching owners... or saving townscapes?

The government has asked the Planning Authority to review a controversial policy from 2015 which converted height limitations from floors to their equivalent in metres.

It is a change that has not just moved but widened the goalposts for developers to score more goals.

But it is hard to decipher the intentions of the latest reform, because at this stage the PA is simply asking for feedback on the very vague objective of “clarifying” the policy. Given the track record of successive governments in moving goalposts in favour of developers and property owners, environmentalists have every reason to be suspicious.

How one policy changed a country

In 2015, the height limitation of three floors – which is the most common planning designation for heights in Malta and Gozo – was translated in a building height that ranges between 15.4m and 17.5m, depending on whether a basement or a semi-basement is allowed in the local plan.

In this way developers could fit five floors in areas where local plans only allow three or four floors. In other areas like Gżira and Ta’ Xbiex, a height limitation of four floors in the local plan was translated into a metric height of 19.9m to 22.2m, which could now accommodate six or seven floors.

This had a dramatic impact on already built-up rows of early 20th century townhouses or terraced houses built in the 1960s and 1970s.

One major stimulus for the upswing in construction activity was that it suddenly became more lucrative to knock down entire buildings and replace them with apartment blocks. While the local plan had previously allowed one or two additional levels over and above existing buildings, in many towns and villages it was still not worthwhile to knock down entire buildings. After the 2015 policy change, fitting more storeys made redevelopment projects more lucrative.

This process was further facilitated by changes in sanitary regulations that reduced the minimum height of individual floors from a legal minimum of 2.75m, to 2.6m; and the introduction of more flexibility in applying these rules. Since the height of each floor in most older buildings is over 3m, knocking them down while retaining the facade as a shell started becoming common practice.

Apart from changing the aesthetics of characteristic streetscapes by introducing blank party walls – often approved in breach of other provisions in the same 2015 policy – policy P35 also increased building densities in several localities, contributing to increased traffic and pressure on the infrastructure.

But this policy also facilitated the approval of apartment blocks which absorbed the increase in population, matching the needs of an economic reality that is markedly different from that in the 1990s and 2000s when local plans were drawn up.

As a result, discontentment on rampant construction activity has emerged as Malta’s fifth most pressing public concern in MaltaToday’s survey, and hundreds of objections are presented daily against redevelopment projects; not just in affluent PN leaning localities like Sliema but increasingly so in Labour-leaning localities like Għaxaq and Żejtun.

The policy change in 2015 had a dramatic impact on already built-up rows of townhouses or terraced houses built in the 1960s and 1970s

Land of the ‘little rich people’

Why persist on such an unpopular policy that is making Malta uglier? The answer is that while many are increasingly vocal against development, P35 has also served to enrich hundreds of people who inherited properties, which they then sold to big developers. In this way many ended up winning the planning lottery and secured a more comfortable life for their family.

As a result, big developers could also amass more and more properties in their portfolio, spreading their tentacles in every nook and cranny, and using their clout, connections and savoir-faire to get permits for large-scale projects beyond the reach of common mortals.

In this sense P35, alongside other permissive planning policies, poses a big political dilemma for Labour. For while many are now calling for more restrictive policies, others who are less vocal shun a policy change which could deny them from an opportunity of a lifetime.

Necessary clarification or new regime?

This dilemma may explain why the objectives of the reform which have been published this week are so vague. The only clear intent is that of converting the height limitation in metres established in the 2015 policy into a height in floors, thus completely circumventing the height limitation found in the original local plans.

Planning Minister Clint Camilleri: The 2015 building heights policy review is one of the first decisions taken by the minister since being handed the planning portfolio

In short, the government will be changing height limitations without even changing the local plans.

Another possible aim of the policy being drafted is to restore certainty for developers in view of planning appeals which resulted in the revocation of a few permits. These include permits issued to Gozo magnate Joseph Portelli in Balzan and Xewkija, revoked by the Environment and Review Tribunal because of a conflict of interpretation on how many floors can be fitted within the prevailing height limitation. Environmentalists now fear that the new changes are aimed at restoring certainty to major developers frustrated by similar decisions.

But the government may well be testing the waters by embarking on a lengthy process which could take years. For the public consultation on the objectives of the proposed reform should eventually lead to a policy draft which would have to undergo two other public consultation rounds before becoming an official policy.

And this raises another important question: why is the government resorting to piecemeal changes in the height regime instead of embarking on the formulation of new local plans?

The local plan taboos

The problem with tinkering with height limits is that this being done in the absence of any studies that assess the impact of increased densities in different Maltese towns and villages. On the other hand, any changes to local plans have to be accompanied by impact assessments based on demographic data.

One major fear prevailing even among environmentalists is that any reform of local plans is bound to open a can of worms in the shape of demands for the inclusion of new lands in development zones and pressure to move the goalposts in favour of more development.

But changing the local plans also provides an opportunity for local communities in shaping the future of their localities in a democratisation of the planning process. It is also a golden opportunity to correct past mistakes. In this sense, the government’s decision to press for changes to the Gozo local plan to rule out the Hondoq ir-Rummien development rubbishes previous claims by the same government that it would have to compensate developers when taking away developers’ rights established by previous policies. But the question remains: can the current political class be trusted with such a sensitive reform?