Conflicting voices have united in their criticism of the Paceville master plan, but Planning Authority executive chairman Johann Buttigieg insists itis only the first draft. He speaks to Kurt Sansone about the controversial plan.

The brief was for the master plan to be drafted around the nine high-rise projects slated for the area rather than focussing on regenerating the whole of Paceville. Why?

One of the biggest ‘positive’ problems in Malta is the high rate of property ownership. In the UK, ownership rests with the Crown or a few rich landlords. There are home owners in the boroughs but the high streets and other prominent areas belong to a few people or the Crown. In these cases, planning becomes an easier exercise to carry out.

The fact that Paceville is characterised by multiple ownership makes it difficult to regenerate. The fragmentation means that to get something done will take us ages. In this context we had to ask ourselves where it was possible to carry out regeneration. This could be achieved on those sites that cover a good chunk of land, which is owned by a single entity. A physical regeneration with immediate effect – within five to 10 years – can only be done on large sites.

I invite everyone to let the process take its course

The master plan argues that while some of these sites will have to give up land to create public open spaces they will be compensated through a higher square meterage in gross developable floor space. It is not a question of expropriation. As a planner I am suggesting where the square and roads should be placed and as compensation you will get more develop­able space on the remaining area.

Does it make sense to you that the plan will displace 400 families living in well-kept apartments?

Who said that? With all due respect this is comprehensive development, which is different from displacing families. I can show you more than 100 roads in the 2006 local plans that were projected to pass through private land and buildings [he shows one such road in Birkirkara on his computer screen projected to pass through two private residences]. This is planning ahead. The proposed roads in the master plan would only be constructed at that point in time when the private owners decide to redevelop their site. Where today there is a block of six storeys, the owner would be allowed to build 20 floors as compensation for the projected road that would then be built across the site. Is that wrong?

This was not sold to people in that way. Residents at St George’s Park woke up in the morning to find out that the master plan was proposing roads passing through their block of flats.

I can assure you they did not discover this in the morning. If you look at the timelines of how it developed, the concerns started being raised towards the end of the consultation period in the sixth week. There were intentions to have certain people go out like that. But let us leave that aside.

A voluminous master plan was released with a high probability that people went by the summaries of the glitzy plan at first and only started realising its impact when they took the time to digest it.

We have assured people that expropriation will not happen if it is not in the public interest.

A road is a public purpose so these people have something to worry about.

This does not necessarily involve expropriation. When we apply the floor-area-ratio policy, requesting the developer to leave open spaces, no expropriation is involved. In the same way, if the developer of the site wants to redevelop it he will be asked to project a road in his plans.

At some point expropriation will have to take place and Mott MacDonald even quantified this.

They quantified the appropriation cost: what it would cost to develop the area being earmarked for a road or a square.

Does it make sense to you that a projected road should pass through a five-year-old modern business centre?

When the business centre will one day be demolished a road will pass through the site. Nobody is saying this building should be demolished tomorrow. We have roads that have been projected to pass through private property across Malta since the 1960s. From a planning point of view it makes sense to have a road passing through that site to ensure a continuation of vistas. We can decide not to do anything and leave things as they are.

But was the plan sensitive enough to existing buildings and uses?

Any master plan in an urban area will affect someone. What we have to do is ensure the impact is mitigated.

We have assured people that expropriation will not happen if it is not in the public interest

­­­­The problem with this plan is that it has impacted too many people.

The mistake people are making is that they are assuming this plan is cast in stone. This is a first draft and we made this clear from day one. People are commenting and one association even roped in its own consultants to analyse the plan and its impact on a particular industry. This is how it should be. They may end up criti­cising us but I have no problem with criticism as long as it is constructive.

There are things in the master plan that make no sense such as the proposal to have high-rise blocks going up on the water’s edge at Cresta Quay.

I share your opinion. There are some things in the master plan which I do not like but I did not tell the consultants to change their propo­sals. I invite everyone to let the process take its course. We were criticised for not consulting people when in 2013 we spent three months consulting people on the local plans. People had replied saying they wanted more development. Constructive criticism will help the authority do a better job.

You are saying this is only the first draft and there will be a second draft, maybe a third. Are you looking at a timeframe for this to end?

We always insisted the master plan was a preliminary document. It is the first draft and was published as given to us by Mott MacDonald. Neither the authority nor the government touched a thing from it.

The terms of reference we gave Mott MacDonald were to ignore ownership issues, and if they had to plan the regeneration how they would go about it. We were thinking of having an agreed master plan by the end of next year but if it is not concluded by then because more consultation is required, I have no problem. This is the first such plan being drawn up in this manner. The local plans decided in 2006 had been published in 2000 and there wasn’t the consultation process there is today. The second draft of the master plan should be ready around April and May.

While a decision is taken on the master plan, will applications for high-rise developments in Paceville be postponed?

When the authority decides the final version of the master plan it will be the policy document on which decisions are taken. However, in the interim, anybody can apply using existing policy.

What would be the scope of a master plan if developments around which the plan was created went ahead under existing policies?

They can do it but they won’t. If under existing policies you can build X square metres and the proposed review will allow X square metres times two, the developer would wait for the local plan to be released.

If the developer decides to go ahead under today’s policy he would forgo the advantage he would have gained in the future under the new policy. It is the applicant’s choice not mine. When the local plans in 2000 were drafted it did not mean we stopped issuing permits for six years until they were approved.

Do you have any personal or business relationship with any of the nine developments?

No, with none of them. I stopped every business relationship when I was appointed CEO. I resigned from my companies and sold my shares.

Curia’s red light on master plan

Gentlemen’s clubs mushrooming in Paceville give the impression it is a red light district and not an entertainment area for all, the Church environment commission said.

Reacting to the Paceville master plan, the commission called for current commercial uses to be reviewed since the proliferation of gentlemen’s clubs ran counter to the high-quality image the authorities wanted to give the area.

The commission criticised the plan for ignoring the wellbeing of existing residents in Paceville, Swieqi, St Julian’s and Pembroke and asked for their interests to be safeguarded.

“One can clearly see that the master plan’s target is once again motivated by unbridled development aimed at maxi­mising economic gain over and above the wellbeing of resi­dents and the population in general,” the commission added.

It said land reclamation should be ruled out altogether if it damaged the rich marine biodiversity. Linked with the issue of unbridled construction, the commission urged the authorities to carry out a national study on the demand and supply of Maltese properties and the fiscal and economic environment that had a bearing on them.

It also called on the government to carry out the necessary reforms in how it leases out or disposes of public property.

Mott MacDonald may have failed to flag a second conflict of interest − Planning Authority

British planners Mott MacDonald may have been involved with another Paceville development while they were drawing up a master plan for the area, the Planning Authority believes.

PA executive chairman Johann Buttigieg said the authority was seeking clarifications from the company over concerns it did not disclose links to one of the nine high-rise projects around which the master plan was crafted.

This would be the second conflict of interest for Mott MacDonald after it was revealed they had been contracted by the architects of the Mercury House development to carry out work for them.

However, Mr Buttigieg continued to defend his position that the work done by Mott MacDonald for Mercury House did not constitute a conflict of interest.

“Mott MacDonald had declared their involvement with Mercury House but that relationship had ended before they were contracted to draw up the master plan and at that stage I did not feel this amounted to a conflict of interest,” Mr Buttigieg said.

However, in this second case, which Mr Buttigieg refuses to identify, the authority has reason to believe Mott MacDonald may have failed to declare a conflict of interest.

He shunned criticism that the master plan favoured Mott MacDonald’s former clients, the Mercury House development, by doing away with a 2005 development brief that stipulated the property should be surrounded by an open public space. The master plan has identified a different area, which would entail the removal of several commercial establishments, where an open square would be placed.

Mr Buttigieg said the creation of open public spaces as proposed in the master plan helped benefit all the nine developments and not just one. He added the existing situation meant Mercury House could build a 20-storey tower from within the scheduled building on site.

“Is this what we want? If anything one can argue that Mercury House was the one that obtained the least advantages,” Mr Buttigieg insisted.