Tribunal approves billboard following court ruling

A 2010 development application for the installation of a permanent billboard in Triq Paskarella, Qormi, was initially turned down by MEPA’s Environment and Planning Commission on two counts.

The Commission ruled that the proposed location was not selected as a "designated site" in the permanent billboard site's maps of the Policy and Design Guidance for Billboards and Signs. Secondly, the Commission held that "the proposed billboard will increase the proliferation of advertising means in this stretch of road". In other words, the Authority was concerned that by giving the green light to an arbitrary location, it would create an unwarranted precedent.

In turn, the applicant lodged an appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal and yet the Commission's decision was nonetheless confirmed. The applicant turned to the Court of Appeal (Civil Jurisdiction) insisting that the Tribunal had failed to investigate whether the proposed location, although not included in the official maps, was acceptable by virtue of it having similar characteristics to the approved locations shown on the maps. This request was made in light of Policy 6.3 of the policy guidance, which inter alia provides that "these maps are intended to help applicants, architects and Development Control to visualise the capacity of billboards that each road can cater for, so that future applications for billboards can be dealt with". The applicant thus contended that these maps are intended to serve as a guiding framework in order to establish whether additional billboards can be safely accommodated in a given site context.

In reaction, the Court of Appeal held in favour of the applicant, ruling that the Tribunal could not ignore the applicant's request a priori on the grounds that a proposed location is not shown on the approved map. To this end, the case was referred back to the Tribunal for a fresh ruling.

In conclusion, the newly reconstituted Tribunal observed that the request was not to be decided on the grounds of a similar commitment or discrimination. If anything, the Tribunal maintained that the presence of more billboards along the road could prima facie exacerbate potential traffic hazards.

As a final point, the Tribunal nonetheless observed that there was nothing to suggest that the proposed site was radically different from the locations plotted in the approved maps. In actual fact, the approved location falls between two designated locations within a stretch which is not interrupted by a traffic junction. On this basis, the Tribunal ordered MEPA to issue the permit, even though the proposed location is not shown on the approved policy maps.