At first sight, those who argue that Annex 2 of DC15 is legally problematic cannot simply be dismissed as irrational. Their reasoning is easy to understand. If a Local Plan states that development is limited to a specific number of floors — for example four floors— it seems natural to assume that the planning framework intends exactly that. When Annex 2 of DC15 converts those floors into metres and the result allows a greater number of storeys within the same vertical envelope, the conclusion that the Local Plan has effectively been altered appears, at least prima facie, reasonable.
This concern was recently examined by the Court of Appeal, presided by Mr Justice Mark Simiana, in John Agius Vadala et vs L-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar et (Court of Appeal, 13 February 2026). The Court framed the legal issue in clear terms:
“jekk l-ammont massimu ta’ sulari mogħti mill-pjan lokali jistax, b’applikazzjoni tal-policies kontenuti fid-dokument DC2015, jiġi mibdul b’regoli dwar l-għoli tas-sulari.”
[Translation: “whether the maximum number of floors provided in the Local Plan may, through the application of the policies contained in the DC2015 document, be replaced by rules regulating height in metres.”]
The Court openly recognised the apparent contradiction produced by this mechanism. It observed that when the interpretative rule introduced by DC15 is applied:
“bl-applikazzjoni tar-regola interpretattiva kontenuta fid-dokument DC2015… dak li l-pjan lokali jirreferi għalih bħala ‘erba’ sulari’ issa sar ifisser aktar minn hekk.”
[Translation: “by applying the interpretative rule contained in the DC2015 document… what the Local Plan refers to as ‘four floors’ now effectively means more than that.”]
In other words, the Court accepted that the conversion system introduced through Annex 2 may lead to a situation where the Local Plan appears to allow fewer floors than those that can physically be constructed within the height envelope. Yet the Court nevertheless rejected the argument that this makes DC15 illegal. The key reason lies in the legal status of supplementary planning policies. Referring to the planning legislation that was in force when DC15 was adopted, the Court explained that supplementary policies could lawfully clarify or alter the interpretation of Local Plan provisions. As the judgment states:
“policy supplimentari kontenuta fid-DC2015 setgħet tamplifika jew tbiddel l-interpretazzjoni ta’ xi parti mill-pjan lokali.”
[Translation: “a supplementary policy contained in DC2015 could amplify or modify the interpretation of part of the Local Plan.”]
This passage is important. It confirms that policies such as DC15 are not merely explanatory documents. Where they are properly adopted under the planning legislation, they may legitimately reshape the way Local Plan provisions operate in practice. In effect, Annex 2 may alter the practical meaning of height limits expressed in storeys by translating them into a height envelope expressed in metres.
The Court, in the above quoted judgment, therefore concluded that the Tribunal committed no error of law in applying Policy P35 and Annex 2 of DC15 to interpret Local Plan height limitations even though the judgment also introduced an important qualification in the sense that while the conversion from storeys to metres may lawfully affect height calculations, it does not automatically resolve other planning considerations, particularly density.
The debate about Annex 2 therefore illustrates a broader structural tension within the Maltese planning system. Many Local Plans drafted in the early 2000s regulate development through the language of storeys. DC15, introduced later, regulates height primarily through measurable vertical limits. And, the Court sees no wrong.
