A quarter of a century ago many people were worried about the way new development was being permitted in what we then called our village cores.
In most of our old villages one finds streets with more unoccupied houses than residential units that are actually lived in- Michael Falzon
The planning regime prevalent then did not distinguish between different areas of the same locality with the result that what was allowed in the new peripheral areas was also permitted in the old centre – after the site was cleared by the demolition of whatever stood on it. Many were afraid that at the rate we were going, our village cores would be destroyed in a few years.
The issue was so urgent that the idea of designating specific areas as ‘village cores’, to be treated differently from the rest of the locality as regards building permits, was introduced in the Temporary Planning Schemes approved in 1988 even before the country embarked on its first Structure Plan and before the Planning Authority was set up.
Eventually more technical jargon set in and these areas started being referred to as Urban Conservation Areas (UCAs) as they are up to the present day.
That timely intervention saved the streetscapes of our village cores from being ravaged with modern blocks in areas that had stood untouched for centuries.
Malta now faces a different problem: over the years, planning authority policies on UCAs have not only stopped the senseless demolition of buildings in these areas but have also deterred sensible development in them.
We are now realising that saving buildings without ensuring that they are used is pointless and self-defeating. Today, in most – if not all – of our old villages one finds streets with more unoccupied houses than residential units that are actually lived in.
We risk the inner areas of many localities being abandoned with boarded up dilapidating buildings. Everywhere else in the world vacant abandoned dilapidated buildings attract squatters, drug addicts and crime. Malta is no exception.
This is not just a physical planning problem: it also has potentially serious social connotations.
The strict policies intended to preserve the character of these areas have led to a situation where only a few people attempt to acquire permits for the rehabilitation of existing buildings.
Many of these houses lack the internal planning that caters for facilities that are a ‘sine qua non’ for our current high standard of living.
Planning authority policies scrupulously followed by planning officers and heritage officials have led to the obsession that whatever is old is sacred and whatever is new is a sacrilege – to the extent that every old piece of stone has to be preserved whether it is really worth preserving or not.
The pendulum has gone from one extreme to the other and now we need to find the right balance. It is about time that Mepa embarks on a serious rethink of its policies that have led to the undesirable phenomenon of people abandoning old urban centres.
The improvement of the liveability of urban areas in terms of pleasantness and amenity is, in fact, a stated target in the draft of the National Environment Policy recently launched by the Prime Minister. The measures suggested in this document include “addressing shabbiness and dilapidation”.
If this is not just pie in the sky and we really want our urban centres to be hives of activity, we cannot continue to look at the redevelopment and rehabilitation of sites within UCAs with the blinkered perspective that has been adopted up to now by Mepa.
The demolition of units that are not worth preserving – mostly those without damp proofing and with bad planning that defies improvement – should be allowed without any hassle.
Conservation efforts should be directed at retaining existing facades, and where this is not practical the re-utilisation of the old masonry in the ‘new’ facades should be acceptable.
Guidelines can be issued for particular streets or specific areas indicating predominant characteristics to be preserved or replicated, especially when there are outstanding examples of masonry craftsmanship.
Allowing redevelopment should not translate into an increase in density: the retention of existing heights and number of units – rather than retention of every nook and cranny – should be the objective.
As I see it, narrow streets and alleys should be pedestrianised but existing restrictions on the introduction of garages in streets of an adequate width that allows for car manoeuvring should be lifted, while swimming pools in open spaces at the back of buildings should also be allowed.
The pre-Budget document refers to the possibility of incentives for young people, associations and small scale creative industries to move to urban cores utilising existing buildings. This is a step in the right direction.
However, I believe that financial incentives – such as substantial reductions in Mepa tariffs and in stamp duty on transfer contracts – should be tied to the areas involved rather than to the potential users.
Mepa’s speed on embarking on policy reforms is notoriously slow. In this case, however, its policy reviewers should wake up from their traditional slumber and consider this issue with the urgency it deserves.
micfal@maltanet.net