Nursery homes away from urban areas isolating old people

The Planning Authority has turned down demands from architects and developers to extend a policy that is granting homes for the elderly located outside the development zone, two additional storeys.

But it will still be deciding on these demands on a case-by-case basis, leaving a window open for requests for ODZ extensions.

The PA was replying to submissions by developers lobbying for a relaxation of building heights on nursery homes, a policy the authority hopes can increase accommodation for old people inside urban areas rather than outside.

As recently as July the PA approved a new ODZ home outside Gharghur, while others are proposed in Vittoriosa, Santa Lucija, Buskett, and also at the Mtarfa isolation hospital.

Already the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development opens a loophole for ODZ homes when “no feasible option exists within the development zone” – but extra heights are not allowed on the ODZ homes.

Lobbying for the height relaxations was architect Charles Buhagiar, a former Labour MP who now chairs the Building Industry Consultative Council, who argued that a hotel located outside development zones, should benefit from two additional floors when converted into an old people’s home, following a visual impact study. 

Buhagiar is the architect of a project that involves the conversion and extension of a Dingli hotel into an old people’s home, in the vicinity of the Buskett woods.

Architect Patrick Camilleri and developer Angelo Xuereb also called on the PA to lift the ban in areas committed for industrial use and commercial activity: Xuereb owns Hilltop Gardens in Naxxar, a residential village built on a former industrial site outside development boundaries.

In its reply to a request urging the ban to be lifted, the PA argued that old people’s homes are best located in urban areas. “Retirement homes in ODZ or on the fringe of urban areas may discourage the elderly from leaving the home or else require more travelling,” it said. “The use of vacant land in ODZ should be discouraged, even if it is within 100m from the development boundaries”.
 

Discriminatory treatment?

But while developers and some architects wanted to extend the policy to the ODZ, more publicly spirited architects objected to the relaxation of building heights in urban areas.

Architect Alex Torpiano argued that the aim of height limitations is to “preserve urban quality” and therefore this should be applied irrespective of the use of the proposed development. 

“If additional height creates poor urban design, then it should not be allowed, even if the purpose is to assist hotels or old people’s homes. On the other hand, if allowing additional floors for hotels and retirement homes does not violate design quality, then the height limitations ought to be relaxed for other uses.”

A similar argument was made by architect Simone Vella Lenicker who warned that “this discriminatory approach to planning, whereby height limitations are relaxed on the basis of the use of a building, creates a mechanism which favours certain industries or commercial activities over others.

“How long will it be before other sectors begin to place pressure on the policy makers to have access to the same waivers afforded to hotels, and now to retirement homes?” asked Vella Lenicker.

The PA defended the choice to cater for the increased demand for space by specific sectors like old people’s homes. 

“Once it has been established that there is a need for space to accommodate this development, the role of the spatial planning system is to accommodate this demand in a spatial manner which causes least harm to the environment,” it said.
 

High buildings detrimental to old people

The PA policy is justified by forecasts of an additional 200 beds needed every year up to 2025 in public retirement homes alone, and is meant to address “the overall lack of available bed-spaces”.

But Anne McKenna, a sociologist and member of the Foundation for Active Ageing, expressed doubts on whether the new policy actually benefits old people.

McKenna pointed out that in the EU and the USA, care for elderly residents is moving away from the large institutions. “Homelike alternatives to traditional large‐scale nursing facilities have been shown to improve residents’ quality of care and satisfaction by enhancing the physical environment.”

She also referred to studies showing that older people suffer from increased alienation at heights of over three floors. 

“When elderly residents are accommodated on upper floors of multi‐level buildings, getting outside becomes a rare event. Staff are obviously busier given the extra time it will require just to get people outside or to the restaurant and chapel. It does not take much to imagine the chaos that ensues in circumstances when the lifts do not function. There is also an increased risk in evacuating residents from an upper floor in case of fire.”

The PA replied that the new policy does not preclude the development of small homes, but since bigger institutions have not been banned it still has to regulate them: “Human relations in retirement homes are very much dependent on the resident-to-staff ratio and case studies exist where each floor can operate as a small independent cluster within a larger building,” the PA replied.