The Commissioner for Environment and Planning at the Office of the Ombudsman, Perit Alan Saliba, said that he is “contributing to the consultation by the Planning Authority on the revision of Policy P35 of the Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards 2015.”

In a statement on Friday, the Commissioner said that he is “committed to integrating environmental considerations into urban planning, ensuring that the revised policy promotes sustainable development and balances construction practices with environmental preservation.”

Through this participation, the Office of the Ombudsman said it is emphasising its role in “fostering policies that align with ecological sustainability and community well-being.

The Office explained that since 2015, Policy P35 (backed up by sanitary regulations in 2016 that established a minimum internal height of 2.6 metres that incidentally is in conflict with Article 97(1d) of the Code of Police Laws establishing a minimum internal height of 2.75 metres) introduced a significant number of buildings within our streetscapes with the permitted number of floors exceeding that established in the Local Plan.

This was ensured through the conversion of the building height limitation from the number of floors in the Local Plans to metric dimensions in P35 (and eventually in PA Circular 2/24), together with the introduction of a maximum number of levels corresponding to the same maximum metric height limitation, the Office said.

It added that, the Planning Authority even approved permits for buildings that are higher than the metric dimensions established in P35, particularly in old streetscapes where high floors are dominant, through the application of Article 72(2d) of the Development Planning Act.

The Office noted that some cases were successfully challenged, and the Court of Appeal declared that:

The height limitation in the number of floors established in the Local Plan must be respected.

There is no conflict between the Local Plan and the Policies.

In the application of Article 72(2d), only commitments in the vicinity should be considered.

The Office went on to say that Planning Officers and Planning Commission/Board Members should seriously consider that the application of Article 72(2d) is a cumulative (NOT alternative) prerequisite in determining a planning application and recommending or issuing a permit solely on the basis of a legal commitment in the vicinity is wrong for two main reasons:

The Local Plans, Policies and all other provisions in Article 72(2) shall also be respected.

Article 72(2d) mentions commitments in the plural sense. If one single commitment was sufficient, the legislator could have easily said that.

Furthermore, the Office noted that the Local Plan itself states that “MEPA (today the PA) will not favourably consider applications for development, which infringe the established building heights” and that “the maximum building height limitations indicated in this local plan override any approved supplementary guidelines (such as DC2015) with respect to building heights.”

The Office insisted that “whilst acknowledging that the increase in the number of residents in Malta calls for a vertical extension, pending their review, the Local Plans should be rigorously respected.”

The Office also stated that “although this would prove to be more challenging in areas where semi-basements are not allowed, Planning Officers and Planning Commission/Board Members must ensure that only proposals that fully satisfy the development planning law are approved as a proper and equitable solution to all.”

It concluded by pointing out that “the visual eye is accustomed to viewing the number of floors rather than the metric dimensions that one can only see on paper.”

When the policy changes were announced, NGO Ghawdix, in an example of how this change can affect the skyline of Gozo, highlighted the apartment block as seen in the above photo. It said that “in January 2021 the PA approved this apartment block, 3 years later this block stands perched over the Nadur skyline.”

“Even though the Local Plans only allows for 3 floors, the permit for 5 floors was still given, and this to the detriment of the streetscape, Nadur skyline and the 19th-century windmill opposite to the block of flats. This circular will now set this practice in stone, consequently allowing for more cramping of apartments,” stated Ghawdix.

Photo: Ghawdix

Permalink: Environment and Planning Commissioner contributing to PA revision of heights policy