In developments that rely on the Floor Area Ratio framework, “public open space” is not protected merely as a numerical remainder, but as a planned urban asset with a defined purpose. The Planning Policy Guide on the Use and Applicability of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (2014) requires that tall or medium-rise schemes create high-quality open space through proper layout and arrangements; that the space be safe, attractive, and usable by the public; that it encourage people to linger; and that it incorporate landscaping and street furniture “without creating clutter”. The policy sets a minimum of 50% of the site area as open space, yet it also makes clear that the critical consideration is the amenity value of the unbuilt/open/outdoor space to users of the development and to the general public. The same policy framework defines open space in functional terms: it is “public” where it is fully accessible and useable by the general public, even where it sits on private land, because the classification turns on access and benefit rather than title.
This approach is reinforced by the Court of Appeal in Monica Pisani vs L-Awtorita’ tal-Ippjanar u l-kjamat in kawza ST Property Investments Ltd (Ref. 5/2025), where the emphasis is placed on whether what was approved as consolidated open space has been transformed into space that is fragmented and less legible as a single amenity area. The Court’s focus is not on a purely technical debate about whether an area “counts” as open space, but on the planning quality of the space: public open spaces created through high-building schemes are expected to connect and consolidate openness, not scatter it, in a way that supports amenity and encourages accessible use by the public.
Against that framework, the introduction of permanent structures – such as kiosks – within a planned open area raises an issue of principle even where the site coverage ratios remain numerically compliant. FAR compliance, on its own, does not exhaust the inquiry, because the policy treats open space as a qualitative planning requirement: consolidated, readable, and capable of delivering public amenity rather than being reduced by dominant insertions that alter its function as an open setting and an entrance or transition space.
Kiosks are therefore regulated in that same spirit. The Development Control Guidance: Kiosk (1994) does not operate as a simple list of maximum dimensions. Paragraph 5.7 requires that the kiosk’s size, shape and position relate to the space in which it is placed and emphasises that kiosks are very visible elements within promenades and urban areas, with the Planning Authority placing “considerable emphasis” on good design. Uniformity is not demanded, but appropriateness to location and context is required, and kiosks should not visually dominate their surroundings. Paragraph 5.8 sets a general limit of 2.5 metres in height, 5 metres in length, and 20 square metres in floor area, while immediately restating that the permissible size must relate to the size of the space and that the upper limit will not be acceptable everywhere. Paragraph 5.9 adds that materials and colours must relate to context, preferring wood or stone and disallowing large areas of concrete or aluminium. These provisions together create a single design test: dimensional compliance is relevant, but it is incomplete without a contextual and visual assessment of position, prominence, massing and material harmony.
Also, outdoor catering standards impose a separate, more direct constraint. Paragraph 5.12 of the Kiosk Guidance allows refusal of external seating where it would unduly interfere with public enjoyment of a promenade or other public area, adversely affect visual amenity, or give rise to safety problems. Beyond that discretionary framework, the Policy, Guidance and Standards for Outdoor Catering Areas on Public Open Spaces contains an express prohibition in Policy P5: “Outdoor Catering Areas which are contiguous and related to Kiosks shall be expressly prohibited.” Where an open space is treated as public open space for FAR purposes—because it is intended to be accessible and usable by the public—formal ownership does not remove it from the reach of policies directed at public open spaces.
The operative question remains, therefore, the functional character of the space and the policy aim of protecting public enjoyment and amenity. Public open space under the FAR regime is protected as consolidated, accessible amenity, not as a mere ratio. Kiosk control in this context is inevitable.
