Tribunal orders resizing of projecting facade at Savemart supermarket

A 2012 planning application entitled ‘Sanctioning of changes to approved stores at Savemart Supermarket in San Gwann’ was turned down by the Environment and Planning Commission after it was held that the proposed development is unacceptable since the projecting room to be sanctioned exceeds one metre in depth. In this context, reference was made to policy 11.5 of Development Control Policy & Design Guidance 2007, which explicitly limits projection depths to a maximum of one metre beyond the official facade alignment.

In reaction, applicant appealed the decision before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, whereby he acknowledged that the projection measured a distance of 1.22 metres, whereas the policy allows for a maximum of one metre. In the circumstances, applicant insisted that the discrepancy is considered to be “minimal”. But even so, applicant pointed out that the building in question is of a commercial nature with a front garden. In addition, applicant observed that the “illegal” projection does not obliterate the building mass and existing proportions. As a final point, applicant observed that the Commission may well depart from established policy provided that the set policy objectives are still met. 

On its part, the Authority reiterated that the proposal is required to be assessed according to current policies. Once again, the case officer observed that the existing projecting room has a depth of 1.22 metres from the façade alignment, thus in violation of policy 11.5 of the DC2007. Moreover, while acknowledging that the “policy does permit decision-making bodies to exercise discretion and be flexible in their decisions, including approving elements that are not strictly according to policy”, the same officer underlined that such departure must be supported by “pertinent justification or overriding reasons”, adding that  “appellant has no right to expect the Commission to exercise its discretion because he simply feels so. In his conclusive remarks, the officer warned that approving the request is tantamount to “a dangerous precedent that would make it harder to refuse similar future requests”.

In its assessment, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification as to why the projecting room should be 1.22 metres and not one metre as required by policy. According to the Tribunal, applicant’s insistence that such discrepancy is minimal was not supported by sound technical arguments. In the circumstances, the Tribunal decided that applicant should submit revised drawings showing a projecting room of one metre as required by policy.