Architects warned to be more careful in property valuations following Santa Lucija case

Architects have been warned that property valuations should not be solely based on the potential height of development established in the local plan.

They have been told to consider also the surrounding context of a property, particularly in areas characterized by a uniform skyline and design.

The warning comes in the wake of a landmark court judgment in March that revoked a permit for a five-storey block in Santa Lucija.

Speakers addressing a seminar organised by the Kamra tal-Periti on Tuesday concurred that height limitations established in the 2006 local plans and the Development Control Policy of 2015 indicate the maximum height permitted but do not give applicants an automatic right to build up to that height.

This is especially so in areas characterised by a uniform design and skyline such as Santa Lucija.

Architect Ondre Camilleri-Gaglione, CEO of Gaglione Capital, called on architects valuing properties to distinguish between the current value of a house and its potential value if redeveloped.

“Unfortunately, very few make this distinction. One should advice clients by valuing the existing property and only indicate the potential value on condition that permits are issued,” he said.

He also referred to the serious repercussions of property valuations based on the assumption that a permit will be approved in the future, as in such cases a refusal can have grave consequences.

Architect Simone Vella Lenicker,  a former President of the KTP, reminded architects that when carrying out valuations they must justify any assumptions made in their report.

“Assuming that a two-storey property can be developed into a five-storey block in absence of a permit is an assumption. If you are confident that this reflects the value of a property, you should state the reasons underlining the assumption,” she said.

This, she added, is crucial in valuations like those in a causa mortis involving the succession of immovable property from a deceased person, where a clear and finite figure is required. On the other hand, architects can give a range of values based on different scenarios when asked to value property for other reasons like bank loans, she said.

Kamra tal-Periti President Andre Pizzuto also insisted that valuations carried out by the Tax Commissioner do not conflict with those given by architects.   

What has changed after Santa Lucija?

According to lawyer Claire Bonello, the law courts have not invented the wheel by revoking the Santa Lucija permit. The court simply reiterated previous rulings which had already established that planning decisions should not just be based on the height limitation but should take into account other policies “as has always been the case”.

“The building height in local plans is not a guarantee of height but a limitation ensuring that nobody builds over and above that height,” Bonello said.

She also referred to the misconception that blank party walls in areas with a uniform height and design can be allowed on the assumption that other developments can follow suit in filling the gaps.

“In reality existing policies simply ban blank party walls in areas characterised by a common design,” she said.

What has changed after the Santa Lucija court sentence according to Andre Pizzuto is the industry’s awareness of already established policies.

“The main change is that due to the media exposure, people are now aware  that there is no automatic right to build five floors and so should the Planning Authority.”

In this context he expressed disappointment that the Planning Authority declined an invitation to attend the seminar. Pizzuto was told that the PA could not participate because the Authority “still has no position on what to do”, after the court decision.

Pizzuto also provocatively asked whether height limitations in the local plan should be removed.

If you ask me “one possible solution is to remove all the maps indicating heights in local plan and determine height on the basis of context.”

Claire Bonello disagreed with this suggestion. “One needs an approximate idea of what can be allowed,” she said.

She also pointed out that the Santa Lucija decision only impacts areas whose skyline remains untouched, and which are still characterised by a uniform height and design, noting that “unfortunately these areas are becoming rarer.”

Who is to blame; the PA or the architect?

Simone Vella Lenicker expects the court decision to result in a greater sense of responsibility on the part of case officers who should show greater awareness of the surrounding context.

“The policies were never intended to give full certainty. It was the Planning Authority which created a sense of certainty by making five floors an automatic right when it was never the case.”

But Vella Lineker was also scathing in her criticism of her profession. “We are the ones submitting the applications. We cannot just blame the PA. We are the ones putting our name to the rubbish which is being approved.”

This sentiment was shared by Din l-Art Helwa Executive President Alex Torpiano, who is an architect himself.

“The quality of what we are doing is often abysmal.  We have responsibility to offer something of good quality.”

Architects participating in the seminar insisted on the need for consistency on the part of the PA.

This sentiment was shared by Claire Bonello who referred to a case of two proposed mechanic garages in the same street, one of which was turned down and another approved despite being assessed by the same board under the same policy regime.