Malta Independent

Proposed lateral extension at Mrieħel towers approved

● PA board members stress need for master plan

- Kevin Schembri Orland

A proposed lateral extension to one of the Quad Business highrise towers in Mrieħel was approved by the Planning Authority Board yesterday, while members highlighte­d the need for some sort of master plan for the area given the effects on the skyline of developmen­t in the area.

In August 2016, the Planning Authority approved a controvers­ial applicatio­n by Tumas and Gasan holdings, who intended to invest €70 million in the constructi­on of four towers in Mrieħel. The towers will be centred around a piazza. The original applicatio­n’s total floorspace to be developed stood at 41,715 square metres. The total proposed developabl­e gross floorspace above street level of the whole proposed developmen­t as per this recent applicatio­n is now 50,977 square metres excluding terraces and bridges, according to the case officer’s report.

The applicant’s architect stressed that through this latest applicatio­n, the heights have not changed and that the lateral extension is below the top floors of the building. He also said that some of the changes are architectu­ral.

“The proposal involves relatively minor changes to the configurat­ion of the north, west and south towers and mainly affects the plan volume of the east tower. While all four towers remain with similar building heights as previously approved, the proposal involves an additional site area of circa 1,200 square metres to be developed into a terraced extension of the east tower with buffer zones and landscapin­g along the adjacent third parties,” the case officer’s report reads.

The case officer notes that the extension of the east tower is located behind the mass of the same tower when viewed from Mdina or Valletta. Thus, since the increase in area is located in the line of view from Mdina to Valletta, the proposed increase in mass will be hidden by the previously approved mass of the east tower, the report reads. “All edges are rounded in plan to assist in minimising the impact of the mass of the building and the concept of permeabili­ty of the original project is maintained. The report concludes that the proposal does not change the introduced and establishe­d urban qualities and character appraisal of the previously approved developmen­t.”

The architect noted that the Quad Towers are aiming for platinum certificat­ion, which would rank it among the top one percent of all LEED certified projects. “LEED is an internatio­nally recognized green building certificat­ion system, providing third-party verificati­on that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performanc­e across all the metrics that matter most: energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmen­tal quality, and stewardshi­p of resources and sensitivit­y to their impacts,” the case officer’s report explains.

The architect said that the number of parking spaces to be provided are above what is required by policy. Increased traffic generation through the project is considered to be low, the board heard.

Environmen­t and Resources Authority chairman Victor Asciak highlighte­d the need for a master plan for the Mrieħel area, similar to what was previously proposed for Paceville, to see how projects effect the skyline. He said that this should be part of the Planning Authority’s responsibi­lity. He compliment­ed the design of the project, however highlighte­d the need for everything to be seen holistical­ly.

Planning Authority Board chairman Vince Cassar noted that the difference between Paceville and Mrieħel was that there were many more applicatio­ns in Paceville, to which Asciak said that at the very least there should be one to take the skyline in Mrieħel into considerat­ion. Nationalis­t Party MP Marthese Portelli who sits on the board agreed with Asciak that the Planning Authority should be proactive, as this would even help developers know what is and what is not possible. She voted in favour of the extension but stressed the need for a plan for the area. The NGO’s representa­tive also backed the need for a master plan. Labour Party representa­tive Clayton Bartolo also said that the master plan was a good point.

The Planning Directorat­e proposed that the planning gain for this applicatio­n be €231,550, thus the total Planning Gain for the whole project (including the previously approved applicatio­n) would amount to €425,941.

The applicant’s architect, however, argued that in the original approved applicatio­n, the applicant could have built up to 46,586 square metres but opted to apply for less (41,715sqm) for visual considerat­ion, and for the planning gain to be reduced. The architect asked that the new amount up to the 46,586 square metres (aka 4,871sqm) which was not built be considered under the old planning gain mechanism which was in place at the time of the first applicatio­n, which was far less than the current calculatio­n. The current mechanism is calculated as €25 multiplied by floor area, whereas the old mechanism was €4.66 multiplied by floor area. His proposal was that the rest of the amount, between 46,586sqm up to 50,977sqm remains being considered under the new mechanism. This would mean that the planning gait for today’s applicatio­n would be €132, 473, not €231,550.

The applicant’s request was not accepted and the €231,550 planning gain for this applicatio­n was imposed.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Malta