Four fixes to end Malta’s planning maladies

The NGO-led campaign Ġustizzja għal Artna has so far focused on the immediate withdrawal of the controversial planning reform outlined in Bills 143 and 144. 

The two bills, tabled last year in parliament, were triggered by a long due demand by NGOs to prevent construction work from starting while permits are still being appealed. But what had to be a limited exercise over which consensus existed was used as a Trojan horse for something far more radical—an overhaul of planning policies. 

The bills propose giving new discretionary powers to planning boards to override long standing planning policies, while weakening judicial scrutiny. 

Two large protests managed to halt the government in its tracks and the bills remain frozen at Second Reading stage in parliament. So far, the prime minister has refused withdrawing outright. 

If an election is held next year the government is still in time to fix the broken system and mend fences with environmentalists by taking on board their proposals. But if an election is called in the next weeks, the two bills will expire automatically with the legislature, leaving it up to the next government to chart a way forward. 

Now, the NGOs are presenting four clear proposals in an attempt to turn the table on both the government and the Opposition. They are asking the two major parties to declare where they stand on four simple and clear demands: Suspending works during appeals; removing illegalities; prohibiting sanctioning in Outside Development Zones (ODZ); and reclassifying land removed from ODZ in 2006. 

MaltaToday gives the historical context of each of the four demands made by the NGOs. 

THE PHYSICAL REMOVAL OF ILLEGALITIES 

NGO proposal: 
Illegal developments should be physically removed once declared illegal. Enforcement of actions must not be indefinitely suspended by appeals. A centralised “one-stop” enforcement mechanism is recommended, with fines accrued up to the point of removal remaining payable. 

Historical context: 
Malta’s planning enforcement system has historically been fragmented and weak. Caps on fines, suspension of enforcement during appeals, and discretionary sanctioning allowed a culture of impunity to take hold. 

Enforcement procedures are also suspended when applicants file an application to regularise the illegalities. In a number of cases, when faced with an enforcement order, developers block procedures in a two-fold way—they present an appeal against the enforcement order, while filing an application to sanction the same illegality with enforcement being delayed by years if not decades. 

Case studies: 
A gate blocking a historic footpath to Blata tal-Melħ in Baħrija was illegally installed in April 2021. Five years later the gate still stands despite an enforcement order issued by the Planning Authority back in 2021 and its rejection of an application to regularise the gate in 2022, which was confirmed on appeal. The continued presence of the gate is the result of an appeal filed against the original enforcement order that is still pending with the next sitting due in May. 

Another classical case was the canopy erected in front of the Suq tal-Belt in Valletta which has yet to be removed. The canopy was originally approved with a development notification permit issued in 2018, which allowed for a “one-time installation of a permanent canopy” in front of the scheduled building. The permit was only valid for a year.  Subsequently, the PA issued an enforcement order and in 2022, Arkadia Ltd applied to replace the illegal installation with retractable canopy structures, which would have left a small central area in front of the listed Suq tal-Belt building unobstructed. 

The Planning Board unanimously rejected the proposal, ruling that only awnings and umbrellas are permitted within Valletta’s urban conservation area. The refusal was subsequently upheld on appeal by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal.  But Arkadia presented a new application to erect umbrellas instead of the canopy and this is still pending. Moreover, an appeal against the original enforcement order is still pending with the next sitting due later on this month. Meanwhile, the illegal canopy still stands. 

PROHIBITION OF SANCTIONING IN THE ODZ 

NGO proposal: 
The campaign proposes a ban on sanctioning illegal structures in ODZ constructed post-2008, except where minor amendments are justified. This is intended to reverse the “build now, sanction later” mentality that has dominated planning culture for decades. 

Historical context: 
The Planning Act approved in 2010 included the Sixth Schedule, which not only banned any regularisation of illegal buildings in areas like Natura 2000 sites (irrespective of when these were constructed), but also banned the regularisation of any illegal structure located outside development schemes constructed after 2008. In short, anything in the ODZ which did not appear in aerial photos taken in 2008 could not be regularised. 

Subsequently, in a landmark sentence in 2014 the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal concluded that Schedule 6 was retroactive, applying to any application even if presented before 2011, putting in jeopardy a number of large-scale regularisation applications including the one filed by the Polidano Group for Montekristo Estates. 

The decision effectively reopened a can of worms, which was abruptly closed by Labour’s counter-reform of 2015. This reform removed Schedule 6 from the statute books, relegating it to the annals of history. Thanks to this change, the Planning Authority could start regularising major ODZ illegalities. 

Case studies: 
High-profile sanctioned projects as a result of the 2015 action include Arka ta’ Noe Zoo in Siġġiewi (regularised in 2017), the Grotta Discotheque in Gozo (2024), and the Montekristo Estates (2010s–2026). The Planning Authority is also faced with an application aimed at regularising extensions to the Arka ta Noe Zoo. 

These examples demonstrate how the removal of Schedule 6 in 2015 reopened the door to retrospective approvals, undermining the integrity of ODZ protections. Over the years, the Environment and Resources Authority has often expressed its frustration over “the malpractice” of first carrying out ODZ development abusively and then expecting the regulatory authorities to retroactively rubber-stamp a fait accompli. 

RECLASSIFY RATIONALISATION SITES BACK TO THE ODZ 

NGO proposal: 
Lands removed from ODZ during the 2006 rationalisation exercise, which remain undeveloped and are not yet legally committed through approved applications, should be reinstated as ODZ to protect agricultural, natural, social, and historical assets from harmful development.  

Historical context: 
The 2006 rationalisation undertaken by the Gonzi administration, reclassified approximately two million square metres of ODZ land for development. The move was officially intended to “address anomalies” but was widely criticised for its environmental and social impact. Many large sites remain pending approval years later, keeping farmland and open space under threat. 

Case studies: 

The Swatar Bypass site (115,000sq.m, presented in 2018) consisting of agricultural land is earmarked for extensive residential and commercial development despite local council objections and flood concerns. 

Another large site at Valley Road (18,000sq.m) remains pending but is being recommended for approval, with developers proposing underground reservoirs to mitigate flooding. 

These cases show how lands included in the rationalisation exercise and which as yet are undeveloped continue to be a flashpoint between development ambitions and community and environmental interests, 20 years later, in a radically changed country. 

SUSPEND WORKS DURING APPEALS 

NGO proposal: 
The campaign calls for a suspension of all works authorised under a development permit while appeals are pending before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) and the law courts. This would decouple this simple reform from the controversial bills currently under consideration. 

At the same time, NGOs want reasonable deadlines to ensure timely resolution of disputes, allowing both developers and objectors adequate opportunity to present their cases. 

Historical context: 
Construction proceeding during pending appeals has long undermined the rule of law in Malta. Residents, NGOs, and local councils have repeatedly witnessed projects rise while legal challenges are still in progress, leaving communities without effective remedies. 

Prime Minister Robert Abela himself conceded this in May 2023 during a Workers’ Day speech, promising reform. Yet, what followed was nearly two years of procrastination. Cabinet approved a draft in September 2023, a consultation ran until November, and then nothing. By March 2025, Planning Authority CEO Johann Buttigieg publicly promised action within three months—another deadline that quietly passed. Instead, Bill 143 and Bill 144, which went wildly beyond that mandate were tabled in parliament. 

Bill 144 did deal with appeals issue but even here, it narrowed the grounds for appeal. The Environment and Planning Review Tribunal’s factual findings would become final, with courts confined to points of law. Given that the tribunal’s members are appointed by the prime minister, this was immediately read as a curtailment of judicial oversight. Bill 143 went further still, granting planning boards unprecedented discretionary powers—the ability to override local plans, change zoning classifications including ODZ land, and increase building heights. 

The prime minister has repeatedly denied accusations of deliberately delaying the reform ahead of an election. He also insisted that “there’s no need to rush this process” and promised that the reform would not move forward in parliament without obtaining widespread consensus. 

If an election is called in the next days the bills will expire with government possibly presenting a way forward in its electoral manifesto. But the delay also means that the ban on works during appeals has yet to come in force. 

Case studies: 
Several high-profile cases illustrate the dangers of the existing anomaly. In Qala and Sannat, the Court of Appeal revoked permits for swimming pools built on ODZ land after construction was complete.

In Swieqi, a 10-storey complex on the site of the former Halland Hotel was already towering over the area when the court ruled the permit invalid due to arbitrary policy application. Similarly, in Ta’ Xbiex, the annulment of a Capitainerie project came after construction had begun.