Government pleasing developers with rushed high-rise policy – FAA

Environmentalist NGO Flimkien ghal-Ambjent Ahjar has dubbed the government’s attempt to push through a high-rise planning policy without a second public consultation process, as something straight out of the “dirty tricks bag.”

“In its haste to please the development sector, government has rushed irresponsibly into a policy that will permanently affect not only Malta’s landscapes but also our health and way of life.”

The government approved a high-rise policy by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, in which it designated the conditions for tall, landmark buildings and towns that will have less restrictions for the construction of high-rise buildings.

But FAA said that the new floor-area ratio (FAR) policy, which allows tall buildings that reduce land spread, has been legislated without any studies that prove its necessity or suitability to Malta.

“Although the tall buildings policy stipulates that studies should be carried out to consider the effects on the microclimate, to reduce overshadowing, diversion of high-speed winds to ground level, heat islands and glare, how will the studies be assessed since MEPA does not yet have a unit qualified to assess tall building design?” FAA asked.

FAA hit out at inherent contradictions in the new policy that say that tall buildings must be located ‘away’ from Urban Conservation Areas, but Tigné – where restrictions will not apply – stood within the buffer zone of Valletta.

“A significant change in character will severely affect Valletta – threatening the city’s World Heritage status,” FAA said.

Under the policy, tall buildings must be of “high quality” but FAA said this was a subjective value determined by artists’ impressions or photomontages that can easily be manipulated.

“The policy does not mention controls to ensure that guidelines are fulfilled, nor scientific methods to assess the applications. MEPA simply passes the buck, saying that standards are ‘the responsibility of the professionals entrusted with their preparation’.”

FAA also said that no real assessment of impact to vistas and availability of water, electricity and drains infrastructure had been carried out in identifying proposed tall building locations. “High-rise buildings cast shadows over a huge area of a city, affecting the light, warmth and solar rights of the shadowed buildings. Buildings close to the high-rise are shadowed for most of the year.”

“Other than the obvious financial benefits for developers, will tall buildings provide any benefits to the built environment?” FAA asked.

“Given that their potential negative impacts are universally known, is MEPA capable of ensuring that these are mitigated, and that our tall buildings are of the highest quality design and construction possible? Given the high rate of vacant property, should government not be providing incentives for developers and investors to focus on work that is genuinely required, like redevelopment, retrofitting, restoration and manufacturing?”