A recurring issue which comes to mind in planning law is what happens when a lawful use is surrounded, years later, by more intensive development. Can those later “commitments” be turned against the earlier operator, to the point of choking off its right to continue? The recent judgment of the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) in Michael Attard Services Ltd vs L-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar (Appell 11/2025, 12 November 2025, Prim Imħallef Mark Chetcuti) deals with this question in the very concrete context of an existing licensed fuel station in Tas-Sliema. The proposal was not to create a new station from scratch, but “the upgrading of an existing fuel station including all ancillary facilities and installation of sign”, and yet the permit had been refused, and the refusal upheld by the Tribunal, relying heavily on iSPED thematic objectives and on the surrounding urban context.
In deciding the appeal, the Court first clarified that the SPED objectives are high-level principles that must operate through specific policies rather than instead of them. The Court expressly recorded the appellant’s complaint that the iSPED objectives were being cited without any clear link to an actual policy breach, and agreed:
“Objettivi tal -iSPED, ighid sew l -appellant li dawn huma principji li jirregolaw l -izvilupp imma mhux qed jigu marbuta ma’ xi ksur ta’ policy partikolari. Din il-Qorti tqis illi dawn il -principji ghandhom jigu applikati ghal kull zvilupp imma b’harsien ghal policies specifici jew ohrajn li jistghu jkunu ta’ relevanza ghall -izvilupp sakemm ovvjament il -policy specifika ma tkunx qed tolqot direttament l -izvilupp innifsu fejn tiehu prevalenza fuq kull policy ohra. It -Tribunal ma qi es l-aggravju tal -appellant kif impostat u din il -Qorti issib li ghandu ragun l-appellant fl-ilment tieghu safejn jinghad li t -tieni raguni ta’ rifjut ma hi marbuta ma’ ebda ksur ta’ policy partikolari aktar meta dan mhux zvilupp gdid izda zvilupp ta’ pompa licenzjata li biex terga’ tibda topera trid tkun konformi mal -legislazzjoni marbuta ma’ tali operazzjoni.”
[Translation: “As regards the SPED Objectives, the appellant is quite right in saying that these are principles which regulate development but are not being linked to any breach of a particular policy. This Court considers that these principles are to be applied to every development, but with due regard to specific or other policies which may be relevant to the development, provided of course that the specific policy is not directly affecting the development itself, in which case it takes precedence over any other policy. The Tribunal did not consider the appellant’s grievance as framed and this Court finds that the appellant is correct in his complaint in so far as it is said that the second reason for refusal is not tied to any breach of a particular policy, all the more so when this is not a new development but the development of a licensed pump which, in order to resume operation, must comply with the legislation regulating such an operation.”]
This already sets the scene: when a specific policy (or legislative regime) directly regulates the situation on the ground, that specific framework must be given real precedence. The SPED objectives cannot be used as a free-floating veto against a proposal that falls to be assessed under concrete policies, particularly when the proposal concerns the continuation or upgrading of a licensed, pre-existing operation.
Within that context, the Court then addressed the heart of the “commitment” problem: can later development around the fuel station be used to undermine the station’s licensed status? The answer was a clear no. The Court rejected the idea that the surrounding urbanisation, which came after the station, could now be turned against it:
“…Il -Qorti tqis li jekk saru zviluppi fil -madwar, dawn saru meta l -pompi huma gia ezistenti u ghalhekk d -dritt tal -licenzja li ghandu l -applikant ma tistax tigi mittiefsa bi zvilupp li sar fil -madwar. Dawn il -permessi ta’ zvilupp messhom gew skrutinizzati qabel inharg u il-permess u mhux il -pompa tbati a skapitu taghhom.”
[Translation:“…The Court considers that if developments took place in the surroundings, these occurred when the pumps were already in existence and therefore the right arising from the licence held by the applicant cannot be taken away by development which occurred in the surroundings. These development permissions ought to have been scrutinised before the permit was issued, and it is not the pump which should suffer to their detriment.”]
Here the principle “commitment that comes after should not work against you” is stated almost in terms. If a fuel station (or any lawful use) exists first, and the Authority later allows progressively more sensitive or intensive uses to spring up around it, the responsibility for managing that cumulative picture lies with the Authority when it issues those later permits. It cannot retroactively “solve” its own earlier choices by squeezing out or paralysing the prior lawful use.
This is not surprising! In the past, this same Court had insisted time and again that no commitment can ever outweigh the fact that a permit must not be issued if it would be contrary to law, plan or policy. So much so that Article 72(2) of Chapter 552 provides that the Board must consider first and foremost the plans and policies placed before it, and must also consider any other matter of substance, including commitments.
Put together, the Michael Attard judgment offers a balanced but firm template: commitments are relevant, but structurally subordinate to law and specific policy; and, crucially, commitments that arise later cannot be deployed as a weapon against someone who lawfully came first. In practical terms, it means that where an operator holds a valid licence or enjoys a lawful established use, the planning system should not allow later, surrounding development to hollow out that position by stealth. The Authority’s duty is to scrutinise those later permits properly at the time, not to let “commitment that comes after” work against the earlier right-holder.
