One common question is whether there exists any legal latitude to justify a new dwelling within a Category 2 ODZ Settlement despite a policy presumption against such development. On paper, the answer seems straightforward. Policy NWRS3 of the North West Local Plan only permits residential development on uncommitted land if the site fits one of three very specific physical forms: a narrow infill plot flanked by blank party walls on both sides; a corner site with similar features; or a site at the end of a three-house terrace, again with a blank wall on one side. Anything outside these conditions is, by definition, excluded.
Yet as a recent Tribunal decision shows, real sites do not always fit neatly into rigid categories. In Yasmin Caruana vs Awtorità tal-Ippjanar (Appell 291/24JB, PA1485/24), the Tribunal was asked to decide on a proposed residence, garage, and pool in Triq il-Buskett, Ħad-Dingli. The Planning Authority had refused the application on the basis that the site did not meet the criteria of NWRS3. The site was classed as uncommitted and did not fall within any of the three allowable plot types. The applicant, however, pointed out that the site abutted a large hotel with a 60-metre blank party wall—far longer and more visually dominant than any row of three townhouses.
While the Planning Authority insisted that the policy left no room for discretion, the Tribunal disagreed. It found that, although the policy had not been satisfied in a formal sense, the physical context of the site still justified approval. The proposed semi-detached house would screen an existing blank wall and reduce visual impact on the surrounding area. The Tribunal took this as a planning gain. It made particular reference to Article 72(2) of the Development Planning Act, which allows the Authority to take into account not only local plan policies but also environmental, visual, sanitary and legal factors in the area. This provision gave the Tribunal the basis to approve development even where the policy wording was not fully met.
Another factor was the dormant planning history of the adjacent site. The hotel had been subject to a development application since 2016, still undecided. While this application could not be relied upon as a formal commitment, the Tribunal considered the physical presence of the building—and its long-standing status—as part of the site’s planning context. It ruled that the proposed house would tidy up the edge of the settlement and remove an awkward blank elevation. This was enough to tip the balance.
The lesson is simple: planning decisions cannot be made by reading policies in isolation. While Category 2 Settlement policies remain tight, they are not blind to actual site conditions. A proposal that falls short on form but delivers a better outcome on the ground may still be allowed. But this will depend heavily on whether the case is backed by strong site-specific reasoning, a proven improvement to the area, and careful reference to Article 72(2).
In short, a rigid rule may be the starting point, but it is not always the end. Where the facts support it, planning law still leaves room for common sense.
