Heights policy tweaked and approved

New policy meets developers half way, reducing minimum site area for high rise development from a proposed 5,000 square metres to 4,000 square metres

The new FAR policy does not set a minimum site area for high rise in Sliema, St Julian's and other harbour towns.
The new FAR policy does not set a minimum site area for high rise in Sliema, St Julian's and other harbour towns.

The policy regulating building heights issued for public consultation in November was tweaked and silently approved by the government on 24 May – on the day Malta went to the polls to elect its MEPs – and before the approval of the new local plans which are expected to be approved by mid-2015. 

No official media release was issued to announce the approval of the new policy, which was published on the website of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority earlier this week despite the changes from the draft issued for public consultation. Both the new policy document and all submissions received on it have been published on the authority’s website. MEPA formally published notice of the FAR policy on Monday 16 June.

The new policy effectively reduces the minimum site area where high rise development can take place in all Maltese towns and villages from the proposed 5,000 square metres to 4,000 square metres.

Moreover, as initially proposed, no minimum site area is required for high rise development in Sliema, St Julian’s, Msida, Gzira, Pietà, St Paul’s Bay, Marsascala and Marsa, which could see buildings rising up to 10 storeys in these localities. 

The new policy allows the development of buildings that are over 11 storeys high only in the Tigne Peninsula, Qawra, Gzira, Marsa and Paceville.

The only limit on high rise development in areas officially designated for medium or tall or medium rise buildings is the requirement that such development has to be surrounded by four planned or existing streets. 

Only Gozo is excluded

The application of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which permits developers to build twice the height stipulated 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 localities 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 localities in Malta, and only Gozo is excluded from such development.

Medium-rise buildings, as defined in a new plan, is development where the height is twice that of the statutory limitation in the local plan, limited 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 permissible in urban conservation areas, residential priority areas, ridges and ODZ areas. Additionally, permissible sites must be surrounded by streets on all sides.

Presently, MEPA’s floor-area ratio 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 minimum site area is being raised to 4,000 square metres, lower than the 5,000 square metres as initially proposed.

The minimum site area requirement 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 landmarks, the new policy still gives the private sector the opportunity to come up with sites which upon detailed evaluation may also be suitable 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 deviate 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 objectives”. 

Moreover, according to MEPA, these tools “should never be used stringently in all circumstances”. Whenever the end product will improve the urban environment “slight departures from thresholds” will be allowed.

Architects’ proposal shot down

MEPA has turned down a proposal 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 minimum 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 localities, 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 localities where no minimum site area is required.

The KTP also blasted the discrimination between hotels and other developments.

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 areas 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 requirement exists for the development to be surrounded by streets on all sides.

A diagram included in the policy shows a site which is not surrounded by streets but has a part of its parameter 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 Association which asked for the reduction 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 reduction from the initially proposed 5,000 square metres to 3,000 square metres, MEPA met it half way, reducing 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 developments should be surrounded by roads or ODZs.

The MDA warned that “instead of encouraging the creation of public open spaces, the policy will be encouraging the creation of roads for vehicles, when these could be located underground”.

MEPA replied that the new policy gives a clearer definition of streets, which includes a minimum width of 10.3 metres. Moreover, while initially the policy referred to actual streets surrounding the development, the new policy allows high-rise development 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 developments.

But MEPA has turned down objections by the Marsascala and Sliema councils against medium-rise development in these two localities.

The Labour-led Marsascala local council strongly objected to medium rise development (which would result 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 impression of a slum area. It also warned that high rises would result in a reduction in the value of existing properties and militate against the council’s bid to promote Marsascala as a tourist destination.

“The only ones to gain from the policy are contractors while the community as a whole will experience the negative impact,” the council said.

The council warned that the locality’s infrastructure is already suffering from the 2006 local plans, which allowed four storey developments in this locality.

It also warned that medium rise buildings would obstruct natural sunlight to surrounding buildings.  It also warned that there will also be parking problems.

MEPA replied that the policy is aimed at creating quality developments, 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 buildings in modern urban areas like Marsascala may actually improve the skyline by creating landmarks.

The PN-led Sliema council also expressed its opposition to tall buildings in the locality and insisted that building heights in some areas should be decreased and not increased.

The policy identifies the Tigné Peninsula as a strategic location for tall buildings and a narrow coastal strip where medium sized development of up to nine floors can be located.