Today marks the 20th anniversary of Malta’s planning system. Heavily undermined between 1969 and 1988 by a laissez-faire speculative attitude and the absence of any planning legislation, planning in Malta reached an important crossroads in 1992 with the passing of the Development Planning Act (DPA) and the setting up of an autonomous Planning Authority (PA).
The intense developments that characterised the 1990s and a large part of the first decade in the new millennium have resulted in a glut of vacant residences- Antoine Zammit
Some will argue that the PA was instrumental in moving away from past practices, which had resulted in extensive urban sprawl across our island. The DPA was largely modelled on the British Town and Country Planning Act, but subsequently took its own course.
We may today define our planning system as a plan-led discretionary system, characterised by the exercise of discretion with the regard given to material considerations.
Following a reform of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) in 2009, the DPA was repealed and replaced by the comprehensive Environment and Development Planning Act in 2010.
Critics of the current planning system will, however, argue that Mepa has been reactive and ineffective in preventing further urban sprawl and in promoting high-quality designs.
Therefore, planning may once again be at a crossroads 20 years on.
The critical phenomena currently being experienced on the ground are partly a legacy of the attitude that characterised the post-independence period, but partly also the result of a number of decisions taken post-1992.
Indeed, the intense developments that characterised the 1990s and a large part of the first decade in the new millennium have resulted in mass-produced, unsellable buildings, contributing to a glut of vacant residences.
The rationalisation of the Development Zone Boundaries in 2006 increased land provision for urban development, resulting in further coalescence of urban settlements.
Even more significant has been the relaxation of building heights and the indiscriminate allowance of ‘three-floors-plus-penthouse’ developments (occasionally including semi-basements), replacing two-storey terraced developments in local plans.
This has resulted in the proliferation of the ‘apartment block’ typology both in town centres and suburbs. As a result, the perimeters of various localities have become characterised by similar ‘template’ architecture, leading to an inability to distinguish between the said localities, as can be seen in the pictures above.
This similarity in design is often the result of ‘literal’ interpretations of prescriptive quantitative criteria found in policies.
Such developments further create an unpleasant and disturbing mass that screens the inner workings of villages, including designated Urban Conservation Areas, and their important landmarks that historically defined the settlements’ townscape and skyline.
This phenomenon has also been accompanied by the profusion of garages, resulting in dead frontages within streetscapes.
This discussion cannot be complete if it does not consider the practices that have a direct bearing on outcome. Never more than today has there been a need to question whether or not the development control process, as practised, is successfully assisting the reversal of these negative phenomena or whether it is fuelling them further.
Planning discourses have to date been dominated by issues related to land use and construction. This becomes evident when one assesses the main policy documents approved since the planning authority’s inception, which are not effective from a design quality point of view.
Urban design considerations, particularly at street level, and critical three-dimensional aspects remain unaddressed in policy-making.
In a similar vein, the Mepa reform centres on procedural improvements rather than quality, attempting to introduce greater certainty into the planning system and curtailing the exercise of discretion in development control. This is evidenced by the stronger regard given to plans and policies throughout the process.
At the same time, however, there appears to be an over-adherence to such policy, accompanied by an increasingly quantitative rather than qualitative approach. The preference for adopting a safe approach in assessment and decision-making, basing largely (often entirely) on policy compliance, is in itself a reflection of the fact that design quality is not a prime consideration in our planning process.
The design quality debate has been spearheaded by the Chamber of Architects and has recently finally found its place on the central government’s agenda, through the publication of the National Environment Policy. This is an important milestone, given that the document will constitute the framework that will coordinate future interventions in the built environment.
This is where we need to start. The current economic environment provides us with an opportunity to reassess our strategies. Speculation having evidently failed, we should now, more than ever, embark on formulating a clear urban design agenda that rethinks the relevance of urban space today.
Given our scale, this strategy must start from our streets with a view to creating meaningful, quality places as opposed to anonymous, leftover spaces.
Antoine Zammit, founding architect and urban designer at Studjurban, lectures in spatial planning and urban design at the University of Malta.