The planning authority is opting for a buffer area around high-rise buildings rather than imposing a minimum footprint that should be occupied by the development.

“The original proposal was to have a minimum site area requirement but following the intense consultations, we replaced it with the need to have a detached urban block,” Malta Environment and Planning Authority official Joe Scalpello said.

“So now, a building can sit on a site measuring 2,000 or 10,000 square metres, but only provided that there are no third party properties touching the development site. It must be a completely detached urban block,” Mr Scalpello, team manager for Mepa’s forward planning division, said.

In the case of medium-rise buildings, the 5,000 square metre minimum footprint in the public consultation draft was reduced to 4,000 square metres.

This was done because the authority felt that having both the detached urban block requirement and the original footprint would have been too much.

The high-rise policy published last week has been 10 years in the making and in spite of the consultations and review by the authority’s board, Mr Scalpello anticipated that the final version would nonetheless generate controversy, with several NGOs already publishing their concerns.

“It has taken 10 years to get this policy through. It took so long because priorities are changing and the issues are complicated.

“The impact on the urban environment can be significant – we are talking about major schemes. However, if we manage to guide these projects to the right locations, there will be a positive injection both in terms of economic and social improvement and hopefully, we will discover some good architecture.”

The final policy has at least taken a stand on a number of issues, ranging from parking to infrastructural costs.

There were originally six sites identified but Pembroke was dropped and replaced with Mrieħel.

Mr Scalpello said there had been submissions by the Pembroke local council, the public and NGOs warning about the area’s sensitivity in relation to the predominantly low-rise buildings in the surroundings.

Mrieħel was added because there was already a government strategy to improve and upgrade the area and its context, he added.

“Rather than focus solely on manufacturing, we wanted to introduce a wider mix of uses, especially on IT and financial services.

“This will promote a change in the character of Mrieħel, always within the safeguards of the relationship with Mdina and Valletta, as there is a sight-line between the two, right across Mrieħel,” he said.

The impact on the urban environment can be significant – we are talking about major schemes

When it comes to hotels, owners will now be able to choose whether to adopt the hotels’ height limitation policy framework or to apply the floor-area ratio policy, which allows them to go higher depending on how the actual footprint is tightened.

“Under the terms of the height limitation policy, hotels can have two floors above the height limitation – or more in very limited cases. With the high-rise policy, hotels can choose to pull down the building and start afresh,” he explained.

Having set the localities and the actual site limitations, Mepa then turned to the project itself, determining the developers’ obligations with regard to the required infrastructure and parking.

Mepa will assess any additional infrastructure required and the developer will be obliged to contribute towards the costs – although they will not be expected to cover them in full. However, there is no formula as such and the amount to be paid will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

Parking remains a contentious issue for any development. At present, if there is a parking shortfall on site, developers can make a monetary contribution towards the Commuted Parking Payment Scheme, which Mepa then taps into when a public car park or private car park of public use is constructed – as happened behind the Ħamrun church and the park-and-ride.

But the argument has been made over and over again that paying money but not getting any parking on site does not solve anything.

If it was simply impossible to provide parking on site, the thinking was that it would be better to have communal car parking – with more turnover and perhaps even in a better location. But the aim, he said, should always be to have full car parking requirements on site. In other words, if the developer can provide all the car parking on site, he has to do so.

However, if he made a case that, for a number of reasons, this was impossible the shortfall could be provided within 200m of the site.

This meant that a developer would have to look for other buildings in the locality to use for parking. The developer would no longer have the option of paying money to fulfil his obligations.

He will have to come up with solutions: for example, he might finance a public transport route, or provide specific travel arrangements for employees to reduce the need for on-site parking.

Another issue brought up during the consultation was linked to the idea of allowing more storeys, as long as there was public space, since this concept had to be defined more clearly.

“Originally, we had proposed an option for a developer to contribute towards upgrading existing public open spaces, such as gardens. But the final decision was that the open space had to be onsite, it had to be at street level and it had to be public,” he said.