Architects speaking at a seminar Tuesday slammed the Planning Authority for being “dysfunctional” and passing inconsistent decisions, whilst still holding some of their colleagues accountable for the “abysmal” designs that are being proposed.

Although there was a widespread agreement that the PA was problematic, members attending the seminar felt that architects must also shoulder some responsibility.

NGO Din l-Art Helwa president Alex Torpiano said that although he agreed with the criticism towards the PA. he said that he hopes that architects do not “kid themselves that it is not their fault.”

“I have seen a number of applications where the architect has not done their job… The quality of what we are doing is abysmal.”

He said that architects are proposing designs with the intention of reaching the maximum permittable size, “under the excuse that if the design is wrong then the PA will reject it.” However, he said that what is proposed should be according to architecture and not a “rule book.”

The Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers (Kamra tal-Periti – KTP) held a seminar on Tuesday about “The impact of the Santa Lucija judgement on architecture, planning, and property values.”

A court ruling last March stopped the development of a five-storey pencil development apartment in front of Outside Development Zone land in Santa Lucia.

In March 2020, the owner of a house in Triq il-Gibjun filed a PA application to demolish his house and build four apartments and a penthouse instead.

Although the case officer recommended the project for approval, saying it conformed to the height limitations of the area and relevant policies, the PA refused the permit. The proposed development would have been on a road which was full of two-storey terraced houses, opposite ODZ land.

However, this decision was overturned by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) at the end of 2022, after the applicant filed an appeal. The EPRT said that the local plans allowed the height of buildings to exceed two storeys.

The applicant’s neighbour, Michael Pule, appealed the tribunal’s decision before the Court of Appeal which noted that according to the planning policy, “dominant design considerations of adjacent buildings should be identified and integrated into the new development”.

On the panel, there were architects Jacques Borg Barthet as the moderator, president of KTP Andre Pizzuto, former KTP president Simone Vella Lenicker, Ondre Camilleri-Gaglione and planning lawyer Claire Bonnello.

Pizzuto said that the PA was also invited to the seminar and was initially going to join, however, it then chose not to come as it still does not know where it stands on this case.

 

Height limitation is just a limitation and not a guarantee

The discussion began with a question put forward by Borg Barthet who asked whether this case was going to change future decisions.

Bonello noted how this is not the first case where the court passed a similar judgement that took into account the context of the built environment and not just the local plan.

“The situation has not changed, it has been confirmed,” Bonello said.

She did not see this judgement as being a change in the system. She said that this judgement confirmed the court approach and also the policy approach, which does not simply focus on the height limitations of the local plan.

Pizzuto mentioned the case of Ian Borg’s illegal pool and noted how in this case the judgement was very clear that policies cannot overrule the local plan.

Bonello confirmed how there was a clear hierarchy within the Development Planning Act, where the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED) takes precedence, then the local plan and then policies.

She pointed out how the gist of this judgement and judgements similar to this, indicate that the height limitation is just that, a limitation and not the guaranteed height on these sites.

The main difference between this case and other cases is that this case made headlines, and has made the industry, including the PA, aware of this decision, Pizzuto said.

Camilleri-Gaglione compared the outcome of this case to the David and Goliath story. Where one resident went against everyone to take down a developer, at the expense of devaluing their own house and houses around him. Camilleri Gaglione publicly commended Pule for that.

Since now there have been no commitments to build higher within that street, the chances that people can build higher go down, therefore, reducing the value of the property in that area, he explained.

Moving forward, Pizzuto said that he was disappointed with the “legalisation” of the architects’ profession in Malta. Architects are now more concerned with playing around with the law instead of designing something that simply looks good.

Simply playing with an idea, Pizzuto proposed a hypothetical situation where a solution could be to remove all the maps on the local plans that indicate building heights, and instead have all permits focus on the contextual permits.

Context should not only be taken into account, Bonello added later on in the discussion. She said that in this case, and similar cases where the building height is higher than the buildings around it, it should also consider that it is overshadowing other buildings and nullifying an investment in solar panels.

Not only a question of design or context, this is also “a question of good neighbourliness,” she said.

 

“The PA needs to re-evaluate the way it operates.”

Following this judgement, the philosophy of “five floors are five floors, you have a right to build that high,” has not changed within the PA, Vella Lenicker said.

She said that case officers should be better equipped to look beyond solely checking the box. However, she hinted that the PA does not want this as it would put the commission under more scrutiny.

Pizzuto questioned whether case officers should be assessing architecture. He said that the difficulty in assessing architecture is deciding whether something should be approved or not based on its aesthetic.

“This is hard for someone that is untrained and in an institution that does not always act in good faith,” Pizzuto said, noting that there have been some controversial decisions.

“I do not blame architects at all I blame the planning commission,” Bonello said. She said this whilst expressing her concern for the increasing level of uncertainty that there is within the PA.

Camilleri Gaglione outright said that the PA is “dysfunctional” and is the “main problem.” He said that it is full of technocrats that are there to thick the boxes and move forward, however, he noted that this is not even their fault as they were briefed to act this way.

“The PA needs to re-evaluate the way it operates,” he said.

 

Hold architects accountable

Vella Lenicker said that regardless of the decision of the EPRT, the design of the pencil development has no consideration for the context, and therefore, the architect should also hold some form of responsibility.

“If there were no laws and limitations can you imagine how bad it would be?” one of the attendees commented, adding to Torpiano’s comments.

Having said that, Pizzuto added that “architects cannot be the gatekeepers of development, although they have a strong influence on development.”

However, to keep architects in check, Pizzuto said that following the Periti Act, which came into force in December and the warrant, KTP is able to issue directives that will ensure that architects will safeguard Malta’s cultural heritage.

For example, he mentioned how in February KTP issued guidelines for its members for projects close to megalithic temples.