So, the local plans can be changed. The question now is: What are the objectives of the changes on the horizon?
In a normal country, the local plans are changed in accordance with declared and approved socio-economic objectives. Such objectives, which inevitably change from decade to decade, are normally enshrined in the Strategic Plan for Environment and Planning (SPED).
The process for the revision of our SPED was launched in 2020. Studies were launched and were meant to be completed by June 2022, so that a draft could be published for public consultation. Unfortunately, none of this saw the light. Now, we are proposing to jump a number of steps forward, as you would in Monopoly (the irony was not intended), to ‘update’ our local plans. But, to achieve what?
Some hints could be gleaned from recent discourse by certain industry actors. In September, an anonymous senior government source highlighted the “complaints by developers, (green activists!) and the public” about the “precedence given by the courts to local plans over recent policy documents”.
The recent property Malta national conference saw the prime minister and the developers basically in agreement about the need to “update” the local plans.
It is reasonable to conclude that the perceived problem with the local plans is that they get in the way of building the larger volumes “promised” by Annex 2 of DC15.
The argument, of course, is that unless we build more (by more, we generally mean higher), residences will become/remain more unaffordable. The demand is very high, it is said, and, therefore, we need to supply more to keep prices down – simple (but wrong).
There are two types of demand.
The first is the need for shelter, particularly for young people setting up family, or simply seeking independence. This demand has a market, which is as big as the number of new family units. Therefore, the first type of demand depends on demography.
The other type of demand is that for investment, generally for rental income. This type of demand requires a market of people wishing to rent; given that locals still prefer to buy rather than to rent, this market is mainly made up of expatriates or temporary visitors.
The second type of demand, therefore, also depends on demography but, in addition, it depends on the availability of funds for investment.
People aspire to protect their savings by seeking investment mechanisms, which guarantee growth at least greater than inflation, so that the real value of their savings is maintained. So, they look around, observe the otherwise limited investment opportunities available – and the policy decisions to increase the population of Malta and Gozo – and, obviously, decide to invest in the construction industry (the reduction in sales tax, obviously, helps).
Hence, if demography growth works, the demand exists, and the opportunities arise. And so it goes on. Demand is created by the economic choices based on demography, and it is preferentially funded as a result of the lack of alternative investment opportunities.
So, what is the issue? Put simply, these policy documents and guidelines have had a negative effect on the quality of existing urban space. In other words, as the residents of many localities have realised, these policies are making where we live uglier.
There is the additional question whether this model of demographic and urban growth can be sustained in the future. Since ‘sustainability’ implies ensuring that future generations could continue doing what we are doing, it should be clear that the current model is not sustainable.
If our socio-economic development does require a growing population, let us plan properly for it- Alex Torpiano
It is vital that the ‘updating’ of the local plans does not simply become an exercise of relaxation of building heights, or production of coloured maps of what one could build where. Otherwise, the current mess will become bigger. It is necessary to first define the socio-economic ambitions of the country, including its carrying capacity. If our socio-economic development does require a growing population, let us plan properly for it. If there are increasing demands for residential accommodation, then, rather than allowing this piecemeal addition of floors on existing buildings, everywhere, which burden the same roads and the relative infrastructure and generally inconvenience neighbours, why are we not thinking of new towns? Surprise, surprise. Malta has done this before, notably in Paola and, in the 1960s, Santa Luċija.
How is this better? The population grew by about 100,000 over 10 years. Tourism figures have reached three million, which means – if we make a crude uniform distribution of these visitors over the year, assuming seven-day visits – that, at any one time, we have another 58,000 residents. Given that our typical town has a population of, say, 35,000 to 45,000, we are looking at three to four new towns over the last decade.
Would it then not be appropriate to design proper places for all these people to live in, instead of continuing to ruin our existing urban areas?
The right experts have to help the country decide on the additional population it needs and over what period. The planners should then decide on where best to locate such new settlements, in the context of existing or proposed road and other infrastructure.
Rather than leave it up to the developers to make proposals, the Planning Authority should commission proper master plans for such new towns, ensuring that contemporary requirements for good-quality urban space are met.
A proper master plan could address a healthy relationship between building and public open space; it could address the required density by appropriate and novel building form (high density is not necessarily achieved by high-rise buildings); it could ensure a healthy social mix; it could ensure there are the amenities that reduce the need for commuting and, hence, reduce vehicular traffic; it could better achieve places for communities to inhabit, rather than just an array of apartments; it could ensure layouts which take into account climatic conditions and which could be more walkable; it could create places!
How would this be financed? There are many models, but one model could be to create an investment vehicle, through which professional developers, and the people seeking investment opportunities, could still aim their available funds at building development, which, however, enhances Malta and Gozo and does not uglify the existing areas where we live.
Rather than give away public land, the additional benefit is that the increase in land value would remain with the state, and investors would benefit from a reasonable and fair profit on costs.
This investment vehicle would also absorb funds that would otherwise be used to add an extra floor or two on an existing building, or to demolish a vernacular building to build more nondescript apartments.
This sort of thing has been done in other countries and we should be looking at which model works for us. Enhance development, create good quality environments and protect existing urban areas, but siphoning out the demand from inappropriate areas.
Oh, for some planning for Christmas.
Alex Torpiano is dean emeritus of the Faculty for the Built Environment and vice president of Din l-Art Ħelwa.