PA ignores Ombudsman by pressing on with heights increase

While some pre-election carrots fell onto the laps of environmentalists and residents – one of them was stopping any yacht marina in Marsaskala – the government was busy devising a new policy that gives developers higher limits in towns limited to three or four storeys.

Now it has gone full circle: First by converting building height limits from ‘storeys’ to metres as specified in the last 2015 policy, which allowed developers to squeeze more floors; now, it enshrines these allowable storeys with a new height limit in the latest policy tweak.

The draft policy clarifies conflicting interpretations on allowable building heights in the face of several legal challenges against PA decisions.

While specifying the number of floors allowed within the metric heights set by the 2015 policy, in most areas the new policy will allow an extra floor over and above what was allowed.

And in so doing, the government is disregarding the planning ombudsman’s advice that pending any review of local plans, the local plans should be “be rigorously respected”.

How heights policies are being tweaked

The 2015 policy had paved the way for a construction boom in many Maltese localities as it became more profitable to knock down older buildings, to build five-storey blocks where previously only three or four storeys was allowed.

In February 2024, the PA started a public consultation on “clarifying” the provisions of these building heights, to “specify the number of allowable levels for all the ranges of facade heights and overall heights in metres.”

The proposal came about because the PA’s own interpretations of the 2015 policy were being challenged by both its appeals tribunal (EPRT) and the courts, “creating a level of uncertainty in the development management process.”

In May, another consultation was launched on a draft policy, that now specifies the number of levels allowed within the metric heights of the 2015 policy, clarifying some problems of interpretation on allowable heights, especially in areas where basement levels are prohibited.

The changes proposed by the PA

The draft policy does not do away with the 2015 limits, but actually brings certainty to developers increasingly nervous about court cases that overrule PA decisions.

Specifically, where street façades are between 10.1m to 14.1m, and where total heights – including penthouse – are between 13.5m-17.5m, a building can have five storeys above the highest pavement level.

On the other hand, in a street façade of 6.4m-10.1m, for buildings ranging in height of 9.8m-13.5m, no more than four storeys above highest pavement level will be allowed.

The change allows a clearer distinction between areas where five or four storeys are allowed, but effectively means that five storeys will now be allowed in all areas where the local plan permits three floors – irrespectively of whether a basement or semi basement is allowed.

And in areas limited to two floors and a semi-basement – or a maximum 13.5m height – only four storeys will be allowed.

In most cases, the policy will retain the status quo which effectively increased the number of floors on all sites limited to one, two or three storeys, by an additional fourth storey.

Environmental NGO Din l-Art Ħelwa fears the policy amendment will continue enabling the approval of 5-storey blocks on typically low-lying streetscapes, negatively impacting the visual harmony of these distinct locations. “The policy will transform several towns and villages into more crowded and congested areas than envisaged under current legislation. This is because the policy does not take into account the impact of increased building densities.”

The ombudsman’s advice

In his feedback to the new policy, planning ombudsman Alan Saliba noted that the 2015 policy had introduced a significant number of buildings within Maltese streetscapes with the permitted number of floors exceeding the local plan’s limits.

But some permits were successfully challenged, with the law courts on various occasions declaring that height limits established in the local plan had to be respected.

Acknowledging that the increase in population required higher buildings, Saliba said the local plans should be rigorously respected pending their review.

And although he recognised this would prove to be more challenging in areas where semi-basements are not allowed by the local plan, he called on PA planning officers and the members of the planning commission and PA board to ensure “that only proposals that fully satisfy the development planning law are approved.”

But the PA has disregarded concerns by NGOs and citizens on the impact of allowing more floors than envisaged in the local plan, due to the impact on town densities and infrastructure. In its reply to such comments, the PA said that while it agrees that building heights affect densities, densities are already curtailed by the limiting provisions of the policy itself.

According to the PA “the issue of Local Plan revision goes beyond the scope of this public consultation exercise.” In response to concerns on building densities affecting parking amenities, the PA simply replies that the “parking issue is beyond the scope” of the exercise.