Mistra Heights permit would stand under new planning bills

Few permits in Malta’s planning history have been as controversial as the one that greenlit a sprawling 12-storey development on the Mistra ridge, once home to the modest, low-rise Mistra Village.

The project spearheaded by developer Charles Camilleri, would not only exacerbate an unresolved traffic bottleneck at Xemxija Hill but also affect long-distance views in northern Malta. 

But the permit is in breach of current policies forbidding high rises on ridges and the law courts have twice blocked its renewal, sending it back the case to the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal.

The NGO Moviment Graffitti has also singled out this case as an example of how new planning laws tabled in Parliament in July could now allow the renewal of projects that breach current policies.

Under the present regime, when faced with a renewal permit, the Planning Board is obliged to consider the policies in force today, not those in place when the first approval was granted. This means that if policies have changed since the original approval, the Planning Authority must base its decision on the updated policies. The only exception is when works have already commenced following the permit’s issue, creating a “commitment.”

Under the proposed law, this would change. If approved, the new legislation would give the Planning Board the authority to renew a permit even when policies have changed, provided that the exercise of discretion is based on "justified spatial, architectural, or contextual considerations."

The Mistra saga

A policy regulating tall buildings, approved in 2014, clearly forbids tall buildings on ridges, making the project a non-starter under the current planning regime.

However, the project was first approved in 2008 and renewed with modifications after Labour returned to power in 2013, before the 2014 policy came into force.

A second renewal in 2018 was approved by the Planning Board on the basis that a site-specific policy included in the local plan already foresaw the application of the ‘floor area ratio mechanism’ for tall buildings on this site. This allowed developers to pursue high-rise development if compensated by open space on the same site.

Residents appealed, arguing that the Planning Authority was obliged to follow the 2014 policy and not the local plan policy.

The Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) upheld the PA’s decision, but in May 2023, the Court of Appeal revoked it, finding that the PA had “wrongly applied” its policies. The court instructed the tribunal to reassess whether the permit was “committed,” and if not, whether it was “compatible” with current laws, plans, and policies.

A year later, the EPRT ruled in favour of the development, considering the site “committed” because excavation had begun. However, this ignored the fact that excavation proceeded after a 2019 request to suspend works during ongoing appeal proceedings was denied by the tribunal.

In effect, the tribunal allowed works to continue despite an appeal and then ruled the ongoing works created a commitment. The decision was appealed again.

In December 2024, the Court of Appeal revoked it once more, instructing the EPRT to reassess whether the site was committed from the original permit date, and if not, whether the application complied with current policies. The Court emphasized that the Planning Authority must consider all laws, plans, and policies that have changed since the original permit. The tribunal is still reviewing the permit, with the next sitting scheduled for 23 October.

Currently, the development can only be approved if the tribunal confirms that excavation during appeal proceedings constitutes a commitment. But if the new law is approved, the PA could renew a permit even for a development not allowed under current policies. Even the Mistra project, still under appeal, could be affected if the EPRT refers the renewal back to the Planning Board. This would require a new case officer report, reassessing the Mistra development under the new planning regime.

Interestingly, while the proposed law allows the Planning Authority to bypass current policies for permit renewals, it applies the opposite logic for new applications. In that case, the bill prioritises the latest policy over the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development and local plans. 

In this way another development, a 34-storey hotel development at Fort Cambridge in Tigne rejected by the EPRT on appeal on the basis of a development brief approved in 2007 can now be reconsidered under a 2014 policy regulating hotel heights.   

Timeline

2008: PA approves an outline permit for redeveloping Mistra Village, proposing up to 868 residential units in 8–12 storey towers on the Xemxija ridge.

2013: PA grants full development permission, later scaled down to 774 units.

2014: Floor area ratio policy forbids high-rise development on ridges.

2019: Permit renewed based on local plan policy, prompting appeals from St. Paul’s Bay Local Council and residents.

May 2023: Court of Appeal revokes EPRT’s permit renewal decision, directing reassessment of the project’s compliance with current policies.

June 2024: EPRT confirms the 12-storey permit, rejecting appeals from residents and NGOs, citing local plan policies.

December 2024: Court of Appeal revokes the EPRT decision, directing a further reassessment. Decision remains pending.