New MEPA policy will allow hotels to increase by at least two storeys

The sky is the limit: MEPA's proposed revision of its height limitation adjustment policy will allow hotels on non-tourism zones to build an additional two storeys or more. 

From left to right: MEPA deputy planning director Sylvio Farrugia, parliamentary secretary for planning Michael Falzon, MEPA Chairman Vince Cassar, CEO Johann Buttigieg, and MEPA consultant Robert Musumeci
From left to right: MEPA deputy planning director Sylvio Farrugia, parliamentary secretary for planning Michael Falzon, MEPA Chairman Vince Cassar, CEO Johann Buttigieg, and MEPA consultant Robert Musumeci

Hotels on non-tourism zones will now be allowed to build an extension of two storeys or more, MEPA’s proposed revision of its height limitation policy envisages.

Launching the policy, MEPA Deputy planning director Sylvio Farrugia explained that as opposed to the May 2013 Hotels Height Limitation Adjustment policy, the new policy applies to all hotels, irrespective of whether they are in tourism zones.

The new draft policy, which is earmarked for public consultation, envisages the extension of floors of hotels with at least a three-star rating.  

In addition, hotels of more than 5,000 square metres and which are surrounded by existing or planned roads, may apply for an extension of more than two floors. The measure, which is primarily applicable to four and five-storey hotels, could see up to seven hotels add more than two storeys, Farrugia explained.

Should the existing hotel site area be more than 5,000 square metres or is surrounded by existing or planned roads, or where the existing hotel is a standalone building, the hotel would qualify to build more than two storeys.

“As opposed to the 2013 policy, hotels which apply for additional storeys would no longer be required to compensate for the additional storeys by extending the volume on the same site,” he said.

Flanked by newly-elected parliamentary secretary for planning Michael Falzon, the MEPA deputy planning director argued that the previous policy was only beneficial to a number of restricted hotels, and furthermore, it also rendered the proposals for the upgrading and extension of hotels unsustainable.

“Due to the fact that the previous policy required hotels to compensate the additional storeys by extending the volume on the same site, many hotels were restricted because they could not afford to buy neighbouring lands to compensate,” Farrugia argued.

Envisaging the building of “iconic” buildings and landmarks, the draft policy, however, applies only to existing hotels which are not located within a scheduled area, outside development zones, on a ridge edge, or within an urban conservation area – thus limiting the majority of Gozo hotels as these are mostly built within an urban conservation area.

Acknowledging that the extension would invariably cause parking problems, Farrugia explained that onsite should be provided according to requirements, but nevertheless, said that if these requirements are not met, discussions with Transport Malta would ensue.

Moreover, hotels must be rated more than three stars by the Malta Tourism Authority in order to qualify for this policy, while guest houses, hostels and tourism-furnished buildings do not qualify.

“The main goal of the policy and the earmarked additional storeys is for the buildings to become iconic. In order to qualify for this policy, hotels must meet certain innovative standards and must also have unique aesthetic characteristics within the urban context.”

The additional storeys will also have to 'respond positively' to the context, the visual and strategic impact and long distance views while proposals cannot affect the surrounding infrastructure.

Asked whether the presence of two members from the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association (MHRA) on the committee appointed to draft the policy posed a conflict of interest, Farrugia was quick to quell the suggestion, insisting that the MHRA members were appointed for a “commercial aspect," and that they did not pose any conflict of interest. 

He insisted that the MHRA officials only want competitiveness and high quality accommodation, and not more rooms, as this would decrease the quality of rooms and would also drive the prices down.