Ligi Ippjanar

The question of whether abandonment of use should be determined through an objective test lies at the intersection of doctrinal clarity and practical fairness in planning law. At first sight, an objective approach—particularly one based on measurable indicators such as the duration of non-use—appears attractive. It promises certainty, administrative efficiency, and ease of application. Yet […]

Applications involving the rehabilitation of rural structures often stand or fall on the interpretation of Policy 6.2A of the Rural Policy and Design Guidance (RPDG 2014). A recent judgment of the Court of Appeal concerning a development proposal in Marsascala provides a useful illustration of how disputes under this policy may ultimately turn on the […]

Regularisation applications often raise a deceptively simple question: who must show that a development does not harm its surroundings? At first glance, one might think that the Planning Authority must establish the existence of such harm before refusing regularisation. After all, the regulation itself appears to place the emphasis on the Authority’s judgment. Regulation 4(5) […]

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 […]