Maltese planning law is rich in instruments, guidelines, and strategic objectives. But sometimes, it is the phraseology of a single Tribunal decision that captures a deeper truth about how policy should work. One such expression recently caught my attention:

“…il-pern tal-appell hija l-applikazzjoni korretta tal-Policy P6. Dan anke ghaliex din tinkwarda tajjeb mal-objettiv urban 2.4 tal-iSPED.”

The operative phrase here is tinkwarda tajjeb — meaning, “it fits well.” But what if it doesn’t?

This remark was made in the context of Policy P6 of DC15, which regulates transitional design between development zones and Urban Conservation Areas (UCAs). But the same logic can be extended to other policies, such as Policy P53, which dictates how the maximum permissible building height is to be measured, including deductions for parapets and allowances for setback floors.

According to Policy P53:

“A building shall not exceed the permissible height as established in the Local Plans… The height of the street façade is arrived at by deducting 3.4 metres from the maximum allowable height…”

While precise, this sort of rule-based measurement can produce results that are visually incongruous. Imagine a development that complies strictly with the height restriction, yet in doing so generates a façade that is visually squashed, overly horizontal, or disharmonious with neighbouring urban fabric. The numbers are correct. The result not necessarily.

This is where the SPED, and in particular Urban Objective 2.4, plays a central role. That objective speaks of:

“Improving the townscape and environment in historic cores and their setting…”
“Development… is to be carried out in such a manner so as to ensure that the historic sites’ skyline is not adversely affected.”

This is not just a defensive provision — it is creative and affirmative. It invites the planner to improve, not merely preserve. It introduces aesthetic judgement into what otherwise risks becoming a box-ticking exercise.

This leads to the proposal I wish to make: that Maltese planning should adopt an explicit “tinkwadra tajjeb” test. This would require that:

  • A policy is not only applied, but applied in a way that fulfils its purpose as expressed in SPED.
  • A development is not deemed acceptable solely because it meets dimensional criteria, but because it makes sense visually, contextually, and strategically.
  • In cases where rigid application of a policy would produce an awkward or counterproductive urban result, the authority must ask: does this really tinkwadra tajjeb?

Conversely, if a project diverges slightly from a standard measurement, but achieves a better architectural integration with its surroundings and aligns with the spirit of the SPED, perhaps that is more legitimate than blind adherence.

Perhaps, Chapter 552 of the Laws of Malta should explicitly incorporate this interpretative safeguard.