Register for SMS Alerts
or enter your details manually below...
First Name:
Last Name:
Sorry, we couldn't find that email.
Existing users
Sorry, we couldn't find those details.
Enter Email
Sorry, we couldn't find that email.

Boundary wall given the go ahead

The Planning Commission had to decide whether to grant planning permission for the construction of a boundary wall at the rear of a residential property located in San Lawrenz, Ghawdex

Robert Musumeci
13 October 2017, 9:07am
The Commission held that the proposed interventions were objectionable ‘in principle’ since the wall was located outside the development zone. In giving the reasons for refusal, the Commission considered that the proposal was ‘not sensible to the general objective of protecting the rural setting and character, as specified in Thematic Objective 1.10 of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development.’

 In reaction, the applicant lodged an appeal against the Planning Commission before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, insisting that the proposed wall was ‘within the garden of a developable plot earmarked for residential development’. The applicant went on to observe that the said wall formed part of a rectangular plot, most of which lied within the schemed development zone. The appellant emphasized that the proposal contemplated a 1.2 metre high rubble wall beyond the 30 metre plot depth when measured from the building alignment. Moreover, the applicant contended that he had received ‘unfair treatment’, citing particular reference to four planning applications that were granted  ‘boundary walls bordering the back gardens of residential development’ in an ‘adjacent or nearly adjacent sites’.

"Site was sandwiched between developments having a committed depth of 38 metres whereas in applicant’s case the proposed wall would extend up to 39 metres’ depth"
Rebutting, the case officer representing the Planning Authority observed that the applicants’ site formed part of ‘a series of six plots which are all similarly requesting the construction of a boundary wall extending beyond the schemed development boundary’. The officer pointed out to the Tribunal that all six requests were turned down by the Authority. As for the permissions quoted by the applicant, the case officer argued that these were characterized by different site contexts and were thus not relevant to the case in question. As a final point, the officer warned that the site in question was regulated by a planning control application having set clear conditions in terms of road alignments, height limitation and land use. Approving the development, the case officer warned, was in breach of these conditions.

 Upon review of the facts before it, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant’s site was sandwiched between developments having a committed depth of 38 metres whereas in the applicant’s case, the proposed wall would extend by a further one metre (namely up to 39 metres). Given that the discrepancy between the committed plot depths was minimal the Tribunal concluded that approving the development would not result in adverse visual impacts. Against this background, the Tribunal upheld the appeal.


Dr Robert Musumeci is an advocate and a perit having an interest in development planning law

[email protected]

Dr Robert Musumeci is a warranted advocate and a perit. He also holds a Masters Degree in ...
Latest Environment News
The Nationalist Party has announced its executive has approved the termination of the Forza Nazzjonali coalition agreement
In a break with tradition, the couple have decided not to marry on a weekday, as with other royal weddings
In his application Christopher Bartolo stated that the conditions in jail, where he is being held, were 'not ideal for his present medic...
24-year-old man involved in motorcycle crash in Marsa with car driven by 27-year-old woman
The court rejected the Attorney General's appeal on the grounds that when the case was assigned to a different magistrate ' the pros...