In Triq Guze’ Ellul Mercer, Dingli, 20 adjacent terraced houses are in danger of being demolished and replaced with 74 residential units and 68 garages amounting to a site of 2550 square metres. Similar larger scale projects are propping up all over the islands where developers are organising entire streets for development.

There are pros and cons to this approach. Under the current planning policies, these houses are all destined to be eventually replaced with blocks of apartments. With property in such high demand, the fate of these traditional two-storey properties has essentially been sealed.

These particular properties are set to be demolished and rebuilt all at once, which is a plus, particularly since the Planning Authority does not require all blocks in a street to have uniform aesthetics.

Infrastructural issues

However, there are a lot of issues with a project like this in a place like Dingli.

The street is in no way catered to take an additional 54 households potentially housing multiple people, with 68 car spaces. The lack of infrastructure would cause new problems to residents of the area such as parking, drainage and electricity distribution.

Aesthetics and proximity to UCA

Although the project will not result in blank party walls, the issue lies with the fact that the project is very close to an Urban Conservation Area, an area characterised by two-storey terraced houses. This means that the project, from behind, will tower over gardens and houses alike, harming the wonder of the St Mary Parish Church of Ħad-Dingli.

Visually the back of the apartments will be prominent and will probably mean people will have to look at drying underwear on the rear balconies as one tries to enjoy a meal at Barbajean or a beer at the village feast.

Existing Planning Commitments

The argument, as always, for these projects is that they are legal and within the planning framework. In the same road, a few terraced houses have already fallen to make way for pencil developments and therefore the commitment already exists from a planning perspective.

However if we want to seriously discuss planning reform in Malta, common sense policies must be put on paper. The current planning system fails to take into account the potential of our villages; a project like this could give so much to a community both visually and environmentally.

If developments like this are to take place, the planning legislation needs to take into account the community and how the project can reach a balance between the developer and the residents. This project does not achieve this balance; it exploits a policy which is already broken when it could do so much more.

Actual planning reform

Malta needs urgent planning reform that does not function on planning commitments (If Person A is allowed ot build, then Person B should also be allowed to) but practical policies that reflect the realities of today. Individual tenements cannot only be regarded as sites for development but seen as piece of a larger puzzle. The communities must be respected and organised in conjunction with streetscapes, the local environment and existing infrastructural capabilities

What can be done by us or the developers

Victor Cuschieri is presenting the application, but is not the sole owner of the terraced houses. He has reached an agreement with all the current property owners, and together they have an opportunity to go back to the drawing board and set an example for similar projects in the future if people object this project by this Friday, 24th October.

Trees need to be introduced to the project in order to give back to the community. The height of the project should also be revised due to its effect on the UCA, and the backside of the project should be designed in a way that is not an eyesore, like so many recently built blocks of apartments.

What is clear is the application as it stands will negatively impact the village of Ħad-Dingli, and people are still in time to object the application, Moviment Graffitti are “strongly objecting” to the planning application (PA/4646/25) stating that:

“This destructive development would destroy the village’s character, overshadow homes, eliminate private gardens and overload already-stressed infrastructure,”

They also encouraged people to object to the plans that are “blatantly ignore planning policies designed to protect townscape, residential amenity and environmental quality”.

One can object to the application using the following link.