Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1516411
14 ANALYSIS maltatoday | SUNDAY • 25 FEBRUARY 2024 Labour's choice: Enriching owners... THE government has asked the Planning Authority to review a controversial policy from 2015 which converted height limita- tions from floors to their equiva- lent in metres. It is a change that has not just moved but widened the goal- posts 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 goal- posts in favour of developers and property owners, environ- mentalists have every reason to be suspicious. How one policy changed a country In 2015, the height limita- tion of three floors – which is the most common planning designation for heights in Mal- ta and Gozo – was translated in a building height that rang- es between 15.4m and 17.5m, depending on whether a base- ment or a semi-basement is al- lowed 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 in- to a metric height of 19.9m to 22.2m, which could now ac- commodate 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 activ- ity was that it suddenly became more lucrative to knock down entire buildings and replace them with apartment blocks. While the local plan had pre- viously allowed one or two ad- ditional 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 sto- reys made redevelopment pro- jects more lucrative. This process was further fa- cilitated 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 in- troduction 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 aes- thetics of characteristic street- scapes by introducing blank party walls – often approved in breach of other provisions in the same 2015 policy – pol- icy P35 also increased building densities in several localities, contributing to increased traf- fic and pressure on the infra- structure. But this policy also facilitat- ed the approval of apartment blocks which absorbed the in- crease in population, match- ing the needs of an economic reality that is markedly differ- ent from that in the 1990s and 2000s when local plans were drawn up. As a result, discontentment on rampant construction activ- Labour is increasingly caught in a contradiction between growing anger at the uglification of Maltese villages, and the aspirations of property owners eager to cash in by selling property to big developers and become 'little rich people' (sinjuri żgħar). How will the announced revision of heights policies tilt the balance sks JAMES DEBONO.