Reach for the sky... The Portomaso tower is Malta’s highest building. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi

The validity of the planning authority’s tall building policy published this week has been questioned by Alternattiva Demokratika, which said it had not been subjected to a strategic environment assessment.

Without it, the environmental impacts of the policy have not been identified and therefore cannot be acted upon, the Green Party said.

It was not alone in its criticism. Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar (FAA) said the government ignored the advice of its own consultant when approving high-rise buildings due to “its haste to please the development sector”.

With the new policy, tall buildings (higher than 10 floors) may be built in Marsa, Gżira and Mrieħel predominantly for office uses while the Qawra peninsula, Paceville and Tigné peninsula are earmarked mainly for tourism and leisure uses.

Medium-rise buildings (up to 10 floors) may be built in St Julian’s, Sliema, Gżira, Msida, Pieta, Marsa, the urban areas of Buġibba/Qawra, St Paul’s Bay and Marsascala and the Freeport area. The use should be restricted to offices only and the maximum overall height of the medium-rise building should not exceed 25 metres.

Developers are proposing speculative projects to make quick money

“While the Mepa policy guideline identifies the studies that will be required in accessing applications for the development of tall and medium buildings, most of these studies, including environmental studies and strict criteria against shadowing of residential properties, should have been applied prior to the determination of the policy document,” AD deputy chairperson Carmel Cacopardo said.

The Green Party acknowledged this policy would be mostly directed at the regeneration of sites containing dilapidated or under-utilised properties that lie outside historic cores, urban conservation areas and residential priority areas.

But it said the policy should have been limited specifically to zones requiring regeneration.

“This would have been an incentive for the building industry to mop-up and redevelop substandard and dilapidated properties outside urban conservation areas,” Mr Cacopardo said.

Meanwhile, FAA said the fact that tall buildings are to be positioned “away” from urban conservation areas means nothing in Malta’s small towns and villages.

“Tigné, designated for tall buildings, is within the buffer zone of Valletta and a significant change in character will severely impact Valletta, threatening the city’s World Heritage status,” said FAA’s Astrid Vella. The organisation was extremely critical of the fact that the advice of government consultant Mir Ali, brought over from Chicago, was essentially ignored.

Mr Ali said: “Developers are proposing speculative projects to make quick money despite the high degree of vacancy rates in existing dwelling units at present.”

He also advised Mepa to proceed slowly: “Lack of a master plan results in uncontrolled development and unpredictable impacts on urban life. Future tall building developments should not be considered without further planning and study of existing projects.”

FAA said there was no real assessment of impact to vistas and the availability of water, electricity and drains infrastructure before the locations of tall buildings were proposed. In addition, the organisation pointed out that high-rise buildings cast shadows, affecting the light, warmth and solar rights of shadowed buildings.

“While it is a common Maltese misconception that the choice of building type is the prerogative and risk of the developer, the location, type and quality of development need to reflect public needs, as an unsuitable speculative project often leads to unfinished properties which ruin our townscapes and weigh heavily on our economy,” Ms Vella said.