A recent decision of the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal —Justin Calleja vs l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar (Appell 14/25JB, PA887/24, decided on 29 April 2025)—offers timely guidance on the role of technical evidence in contesting rigid interpretations of planning policy. Specifically, the case demonstrates that a swept path analysis can serve as a legally persuasive rebuttal to blanket refusals based on access width under Policy P13 of the DC15 Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards 2015.
The case concerned an application to demolish an existing residence and construct a five-level residential block in Sqaq Bistra, Mosta, including underlying garages. The Planning Commission refused the application on three grounds. Of interest here is the second refusal reason, which stated:
“L-iżvilupp propost ma jikkonformax mal-provedimenti tal-gwida G9 u policy P13 tal-Linja Gwida DC15 li tispeċifika illi żviluppi ġodda jew redevelopments għandhom ikunu pprovduti b’rotta t’aċċess adegwata minn triq eżistenti jew triq proposta skont il-Pjan Lokali… għalhekk il-proposta ma tikkonformax mal-Oġġettiv Urban 3 tal-iSPED.”
The Authority interpreted this to mean that, because the road in question was narrower than 4.1 metres, vehicular access was per se inadequate. Relying on Standard S2 of DC15, it concluded that garages could not be permitted unless the road met the prescribed minimum width.
Yet this reading of Policy P13 was not upheld by the Tribunal. The applicant had submitted a swept path diagram, demonstrating that vehicles could access and exit the proposed garages without excessive manoeuvring. The Tribunal accepted this as sufficient to rebut the Authority’s rigid interpretation:
“…jidher li l-vetturi privati jidħlu mingħajr manuvrar eċċessiv, għalhekk għall-kuntrarju ta’ dak li qed tindika l-Awtorita’.”
Crucially, the Tribunal cited Transport Malta’s consultation response, which had taken cognisance of the swept path analysis and raised no objection. The Authority, however, persisted in a rigid textual reading of Standard S2 and Policy P13—an approach the Tribunal found legally untenable.
Indeed, Policy P13 itself contains an internal qualification that allows for precisely this kind of context-sensitive flexibility. The policy reads:
“Where for overriding aesthetic reasons a vehicular access of 4.1 metres is undesirable, a reduced width may be considered. Nevertheless, regard should be given to the swept path of turning vehicles, and the safety and convenience of the access.”
In other words, the Authority’s refusal to consider reduced widths—even in the presence of clear technical evidence—was inconsistent with the policy it purported to apply.
The Tribunal thus rejected the second refusal reason, noting also that neighbouring properties had been granted garage access under comparable or narrower conditions. More broadly, the Tribunal affirmed that Policy P13 is concerned not with nominal dimensions, but with actual performance and safety. It is not a mathematical threshold to be rigidly applied but a policy framework to be interpreted in light of context and evidence.
This judgment is part of a wider jurisprudential shift. Over the past several years, the Tribunal has become increasingly reluctant to uphold planning refusals that are mechanistically based on quantitative standards, particularly where those standards are rebuttable by design-based evidence. The submission of a swept path analysis—long a staple in traffic engineering—thus takes on renewed legal significance: it becomes not only a design tool but also a procedural safeguard against overreach.
In the Tribunal’s words:
“…għall-kuntrarju ta’ dak li qed tindika l-Awtorità, l-iswept path analysis juri manuvrar adegwat u għaldaqstant ma jirriżultax li dan il-garaxx imur kontra d-dispożizzjonijiet tal-policy P13 u l-istandard S2.”
Put differently: where policy invites judgment, formulaic refusal is no substitute for evaluation.
This case therefore confirms what planning professionals have long argued: that contextual performance, when properly demonstrated, can displace blanket formalism. In this light, swept path analysis is not a mere technicality—it is a form of evidentiary rebuttal that can realign policy application with the law’s intended proportionality.
