The publication of the planning authority’s new policy for high-rise building was strongly criticised by environment groups. The underlying suspicion is that the new policy is intended to placate the building lobby with the result that it appears to be half baked and lacking the necessary studies and safeguards.
In reality, high-rise buildings, as defined by the new policy – structures that are higher than 10 floors – are not new to the Maltese islands. If any criticism is to be made, it should be why the authorities have not come up with a comprehensive policy before. The rapid redevelopment of the Sliema seafront into sometimes 10-storey residential blocks in the 1980s should have served as an eye-opener. Instead, we have since seen other high-rise buildings in Tigné, Gżira, St Paul’s Bay, Xemxija, Marsascala and Luqa, not to mention the A3 Towers in Paola and the Portomaso Tower.
Demand for high-rise is clearly not satiated as Mepa has 24 development applications and another 30 expressions of interest with its Planning Directorate, with heights varying from nine to 40 floors. They generally consist of residential, office or mixed use developments.
The 1990 structure plan did not contain any policy guidance on tall buildings and Mepa says it had been working on this policy for 10 years. But as Alternattiva Demokratika pointed out, no strategic environment assessment has been done.
Mepa’s policy identifies the “strategic locations” for tall buildings – Marsa Park, Gżira and Mrieħel predominantly for office use and the Qawra peninsula, Paceville and Tigné mainly for tourism and leisure purposes – but then qualifies its own policy by emphasising that they are only a preliminary indication. In fact, it admits there is no detailed urban design study or character appraisal of the identified locations. It was not appropriate or practicable to develop a policy that delineates detailed boundaries, identifies specific sites, indicates the maximum number of buildings to be permitted or even establishes maximum heights.
Mepa places the onus on the developers to make the case for a tall building in the context of an urban design study/character appraisal prepared by them, together with an environment impact assessment, a transport assessment and a social impact assessment.
It is ironic therefore that in their reactions to the policy, environmental groups Din l-Art Ħelwa and Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar both quote Mepa’s own consultants to question the wisdom of embarking further down the path of high-rise buildings, warning that a lack of a master plan could result in uncontrolled development with unpredictable impacts on urban life.
The Church Environmental Commission made similar arguments in a scathing criticism of SPED, which is intended to replace the 1990 structure plan. It pointed out that SPED failed to provide statistical information to justify the proposed policies. Mepa has not provided any statistical information to support its high-rise policy either, other than saying that a demand exists.
Maybe to compensate for the lack of a sound policy framework, Mepa emphasises the issue of quality architecture, saying that high-rise development proposals should make a positive contribution to the urban form and skyline and support regeneration. Mepa would be “looking for buildings that are icons of architectural quality in themselves and would not accept low quality”.
Even the most iconic buildings may not suffice to compensate for a policy on high-rise buildings created in a vacuum.
