Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1516411
15 ANALYSIS maltatoday | SUNDAY • 25 FEBRUARY 2024 owners... or saving townscapes? ity has emerged as Malta's fifth most pressing public concern in MaltaToday's survey, and hundreds of objections are pre- sented daily against redevelop- ment projects; not just in afflu- ent PN leaning localities like Sliema but increasingly so in Labour-leaning localities like Għaxaq and Żejtun. Land of the 'little rich people' Why persist on such an un- popular policy that is making Malta uglier? The answer is that while many are increasing- ly vocal against development, P35 has also served to enrich hundreds of people who in- herited properties, which they then sold to big developers. In this way many ended up win- ning 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 port- folio, 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 poli- cies, poses a big political dilem- ma for Labour. For while many are now calling for more restric- tive 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 re- form which have been pub- lished this week are so vague. The only clear intent is that of converting the height limi- tation in metres established in the 2015 policy into a height in floors, thus completely cir- cumventing the height limita- tion found in the original local plans. In short, the government will be changing height limitations without even changing the lo- cal plans. Another possible aim of the policy being drafted is to re- store certainty for developers in view of planning appeals which resulted in the revoca- tion of a few permits. These include permits issued to Gozo magnate Joseph Portelli in Balzan and Xewkija, revoked by the Environment and Re- view 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 em- barking on a lengthy process which could take years. For the public consultation on the ob- jectives of the proposed reform should eventually lead to a policy draft which would have to undergo two other public consultation rounds before be- coming an official policy. And this raises another im- portant question: why is the government resorting to piece- meal changes in the height re- gime 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 im- pact 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 demo- graphic data. One major fear prevailing even among environmental- ists 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 shap- ing the future of their locali- ties 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 rub- bishes 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 re- mains: can the current politi- cal class be trusted with such a sensitive reform? Above: The Planning Authority has been tasked to review a controversial policy from 2015 which converted height limitations from floors to their equivalent in metres Left: 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 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. How the planning goalposts changed 2006 Local plans introduce height limitation in floors in all Maltese localities, with many two storey areas in development zone getting an extra floor and a potential penthouse level. 2007 Development Control Design Policy specifies that building heights should not exceed the permitted number of floors, as specified in the Local Plans and also the allowable maximum height in metres included in new policy. 2015 New Development Control Design Policy includes P35, a policy which converts the height limitation from the number of floors allowed in the local plan to a height in metres. 2016 Sanitary rules lower height of each habitable floor from 2.75 m to 2.6m. 2024 Government asks Planning Authority to review P35 with the aim of clarifying any conflicting interpretation.