A controversial partial review of the planning policy for the Ta’ Masrija area in Mellieħa was yesterday approved by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority.

The planning authority said the purpose of the review was the regeneration of a large site on the southern perimeter of Mellieħa which currently lay derelict and was a scar on both the urban and rural environments.

One of the stated objectives for the planning review, which has met with opposition from residents, was to prohibit the adoption of the floor-area-ratio policy on site – a policy that could have resulted in high buildings towering over a ridge.

However, the new policy document also permits heights along Ta’ Masrija Street of four and five floors, with increased heights of up to seven in other parts of the site.

Residents speaking at the meeting argued that the height restrictions should be identical to the surrounding area, which is characterised by two to three storey buildings.

Development applications for three areas on site held by different owners have been pending since 2006 over a controversy that erupted after a proposal for a development of 462 apartments, more than 700 parking spaces, a 1,025-square-metre neighbourhood centre, and a club of similar size.

Representing residents, architect Carmel Caccopardo said yesterday that the new policy signalled a shift of goalposts, as it allowed for development up to twice as intensive as the surrounding areas.

There is still an ethical responsibility to the residents

“The residents have constructed their buildings according to a given set of parameters, and while the law allows for the parameters to be changed, there is still an ethical responsibility to the residents,” he said.

Mellieħa vice-mayor Clayton Bartolo stressed the need for any development to focus on high-level properties and for a limitation on the nature of commercial establishments so as not to increase traffic to the surrounding residential area.

The board also considered a proposed amendment to minimise the visual impact by imposing “real” stepping – reducing building height towards the front of the ridge – but the amendment was rejected.

It said that, while retaining the framework as established in the 2006 policy, the planning policy, which would be put to the government for approval, would formulate a master-plan for the area.