The decision by the planning authority to allow the development of the massive 12-storey, 744 apartment Mistra project on the ridge overlooking Xemxija Bay is the personification of greed and the uglification of Malta. It gives the lie to the Government’s pledge in its electoral manifesto that “Malta should be in the vanguard on environmental standards, not because there is an obligation placed upon us by European directives but because this is what best suits our children and generations to come”.

It can immediately be seen why the reaction of environmental groups and all those who care about Malta’s built heritage have been incensed by the Mepa board’s Mistra Village decision. It is unconscionable on aesthetic grounds, on land use and environmental grounds and will create a long-term blight on the transportation and infrastructural system in the area.

Aesthetically, we have been here before. The massive-scale developments on the Tigné peninsula, proportionately far too large in relation to the area around them, should have given Mepa planners pause for thought about how not to do it. But what has happened at Mistra has even outstripped the errors made at Tigné and elsewhere.

For this ‘monstrous’ building has been placed directly on a ridge at the top of a hill, thus visually dominating all around it in an area which was relatively scenic. That the size and density of the building has been reduced from what was originally intended is of little consolation. As any architect worth his salt will tell you, high density, 12-storey buildings should not stand on the ridge of a hill but should instead be made to blend into the ridge-line unobtrusively.

In planning terms, therefore, the permit granted is a gross error, which runs counter to Mepa’s own policy against high-rise buildings on ridges and with its grotesque footprint sets a damaging policy precedent elsewhere. That the Mepa board based its decision on the, as yet unapproved, high rise policy that calls for a maximum of eight floors to be allowed in such cases simply rubs salt into the wound. But the decision is rendered even more flawed when consideration is given to the infrastructural and transport impact of the project on the surrounding area.

The new complex will exacerbate an already dire traffic situation with the addition of some 1,600 cars a day to the 23,000 using it. Transport Malta, which had formerly objected to the scale of this project because of traffic density, mysteriously withdrew them on the insouciant grounds that the size of the project had now been reduced and “the situation is so bad that adding another 1,600 cars to the area will not make a difference”.

The outlook for Malta’s environment is bleak. We appear to have a Government which, despite its fine words when in Opposition, is hell-bent on placating the development lobby and encouraging construction in the mistaken belief that this will lead to economic growth. It is debatable whether it will do that, even in the short term. What is certain is that the long-term environmental and quality of life consequences of rampant development carry a heavy price in terms of the uglification of Malta and the steady loss of its once unique cultural landscape.