Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/329964
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 15 JUNE 2014 News 9 Heights policy tweaked and approved 11 storeys high only in the Tigne Peninsula, Qawra, Gzira, Marsa and Paceville. The only limit on high rise devel- opment in areas officially designated for medium or tall or medium rise buildings is the requirement that such development has to be sur- rounded by four planned or existing streets. Only Gozo is excluded The application of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which permits develop- ers to build twice the height stipu- lated by the local plan if they create more open spaces, was previously limited to sites with a minimum site area of 3,000 square metres. The new rules approved do away with this requirement in those lo- calities identified for medium sized developments while raising this minimum requirement from 3,000 to 5,000 square metres in all other localities. Only Gozo will be spared a high- rise policy that will apply a 'floor- area ratio' to allow twice the number of storeys allowed by local plans in urban areas, that are surrounded by streets on all sides. In this way medium-rise buildings can be considered in all urban locali- ties in Malta, and only Gozo is ex- cluded from such development. Medium-rise buildings, as defined in a new plan, is development where the height is twice that of the statu- tory limitation in the local plan, lim- ited to 10 storeys. Towns whose local plans limit heights to three storeys can now have six-storey towers, but those allowed six, seven, or eight-storey heights can only have towers of up to 10 storeys. No such development is permis- sible in urban conservation areas, residential priority areas, ridges and ODZ areas. Additionally, permis- sible sites must be surrounded by streets on all sides. Presently, MEPA's floor-area ra- tio allows developments to breach height limits when it is limited to a footprint of 3,000 square metres. In all other localities outside this so-called "strategic area", the mini- mum site area is being raised to 4,000 square metres, lower than the 5,000 square metres as initially pro- posed. The minimum site area require- ment was removed from certain localities and increased for others to direct the development of higher buildings in the locations which are deemed more appropriate by MEPA. But instead of banning medium- rise developments in those towns not deemed suitable for such land- marks, the new policy still gives the private sector the opportunity to come up with sites which upon de- tailed evaluation may also be suit- able for medium rise buildings. MEPA may decide on case-by-case basis A reply to a late submission by Paul Attard of Gap Holdings reveals that MEPA already intends to devi- ate from the thresholds included in the approved policy. Attard referred to cases where "although the land is smaller than thresholds," the addition of more floors will "result in larger open spaces and a better design". Attard recommended "an element of case by case discretion" to ensure better planning. In its reply, MEPA described its thresholds like the requirement of a minimum space of 4,000 square metres for the application of the FAR, as "tools to achieve wider ob- jectives". Moreover, according to MEPA, these tools "should never be used stringently in all circumstances". Whenever the end product will im- prove the urban environment "slight departures from thresholds" will be allowed. Architects' proposal shot down MEPA has turned down a pro- posal by the Kamra tal-Periti (KTP) to stipulate a minimum site area for over 10 storey buildings in those localities where such development can take place. According to the KTP a mini- mum site area possibly higher than 4,000 square metres should have been made a requirement for tall buildings which are over 11 floors. According to the approved policy, buildings of over 11 storeys can be developed in the five designated lo- calities, on any site surrounded by four streets irrespective of its size. MEPA claims that the imposition of a minimum site area is to direct this development to certain locali- ties where no minimum site area is required. The KTP also blasted the discrimi- nation between hotels and other de- velopments. This is because hotels can benefit from height increases irrespective of whether these are surrounded by four streets or not. On the other hand, all other developments have to be surrounded by four streets. High-rise buildings to face ODZs Although medium and high-rise development is banned in all ar- eas outside developments zones (ODZs), medium rise development of six to seven storeys can still take place on vacant plots bordering on ODZs. Moreover, in such areas no re- quirement exists for the develop- ment to be surrounded by streets on all sides. A diagram included in the policy shows a site which is not surround- ed by streets but has a part of its pa- rameter facing an ODZ. According to the new policy, such sites should be considered as long as these do not violate other policies like the one banning high rises on ridges. Developers' concerns partly addressed It was the Malta Developers As- sociation which asked for the reduc- tion of the minimum site area for developments outside the strategic areas where no minimum site area is required. But while the MDA asked for a re- duction from the initially proposed 5,000 square metres to 3,000 square metres, MEPA met it half way, re- ducing the minimum site area to 4,000 square metres. MEPA turned down the MDA's call to reconsider the government's decision to exclude Gozo from any high and medium rise development. The MDA also objected to the requirement that high rise devel- opments should be surrounded by roads or ODZs. The MDA warned that "instead of encouraging the creation of public open spaces, the policy will be en- couraging the creation of roads for vehicles, when these could be locat- ed underground". MEPA replied that the new policy gives a clearer definition of streets, which includes a minimum width of 10.3 metres. Moreover, while initial- ly the policy referred to actual streets surrounding the development, the new policy allows high-rise devel- opment surrounded by projected streets which are incorporated in the proposed development. Policy will create slum areas – Marsascala council Pembroke, which was originally identified as a "reserve" site for over 11-storey development is now only identified as site for medium rise de- velopments. But MEPA has turned down objec- tions by the Marsascala and Sliema councils against medium-rise develop- ment in these two localities. The Labour-led Marsascala local council strongly objected to medium rise development (which would re- sult in 8- to 9-storey developments) warning that this would create "slum areas". The council claims that residences are already hanging their clothes from balconies due to the lack of access to rooftops, and that this gives the im- pression of a slum area. It also warned that high rises would result in a reduc- tion in the value of existing properties and militate against the council's bid to promote Marsascala as a tourist desti- nation. "The only ones to gain from the policy are contractors while the com- munity as a whole will experience the negative impact," the council said. The council warned that the local- ity's infrastructure is already suffering from the 2006 local plans, which al- lowed four storey developments in this locality. It also warned that medium rise buildings would obstruct natural sun- light to surrounding buildings. It also warned that there will also be parking problems. MEPA replied that the policy is aimed at creating quality develop- ments, and not slums. The new policy also includes a provision to ensure that any high rise development must be self sufficient with regard to parking. The policy also prohibits the payment of monies in lieu of lost parking spaces to ensure that all parking requirements are fulfilled by the development. According to MEPA, higher build- ings in modern urban areas like Mar- sascala may actually improve the sky- line by creating landmarks. The PN-led Sliema council also ex- pressed its opposition to tall buildings in the locality and insisted that build- ing heights in some areas should be decreased and not increased. The policy identifies the Tigné Pe- ninsula as a strategic location for tall buildings and a narrow coastal strip where medium sized development of up to nine floors can be located. MEPA has turned down objections by the Marsascala and Sliema councils against medium-rise developments in these two localities... the Marsaskala council said that the "only ones to gain from the policy are contractors while the community as a whole will experience the negative impact"