Broad ministerial powers risk undermining planning appeals reform, Opposition warns

Opposition planning spokesperson Rebekah Borg warned that government's proposed planning appeals reform risks being weakened by legal loopholes and broad ministerial powers.

Speaking in parliament on Tuesday during a debate on the proposed amendments, Borg welcomed the reform but argued that several shortcomings could undermine its effectiveness and further erode public trust in the planning sector.

She outlined a number of concerns with the proposed legislation, stressing that her criticism was not an attack on government or the reform itself, but rather an attempt to strengthen it and address potential weaknesses.

‘Strategic importance’

Borg raised concerns over a provision allowing the planning minister to exempt projects deemed to be of strategic importance from the automatic suspension of works while an appeal is ongoing.

Although the minister would be required to justify such a decision, which could subsequently be challenged before the Court of Appeal, Borg warned that the provision was too broad and could undermine the effectiveness of the reform.

She argued that projects without genuine urgency could be classified as strategically important, allowing works to proceed despite pending appeals.

Borg insisted that “exceptions should remain exceptions,” and called for clearer criteria to determine which projects qualify as strategically important.

She warned that leaving the provision open to broad interpretation could weaken public confidence in the legislation, arguing that such concerns should be addressed before the reform comes into force.

Different permissions from different authorities: ‘It makes no sense’

Borg also pointed to a potential loophole concerning permits issued by authorities other than the Planning Authority (PA).

She explained that larger developments often require permits from multiple entities, including the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) and Transport Malta.

However, the proposed reform only covers permits issued by the PA, meaning that works authorised through other permits would not necessarily be suspended while a planning appeal is ongoing.

“It makes no sense,” Borg told parliament.

Borg called for the legislation to be clarified and amended where necessary to ensure that related permits are also covered by the automatic suspension.

She cited the development in Comino as an example, explaining that while the PA permit was under appeal, a separate permit issued by ERA meant that certain works could technically proceed.

Borg argued that such inconsistencies also risk undermining the purpose of the reform.

Minor amendments and property contracts

Borg also called for further clarification on minor amendments to planning permits, noting that changes to approved plans can still be made while an appeal is ongoing.

She warned that this could result in a project being altered while its original permit remains under appeal, creating uncertainty over which plans are subject to the proceedings.

Additionally, Borg proposed that property contracts should explicitly state whether a development is subject to an ongoing planning appeal, ensuring that prospective buyers are aware of any legal uncertainty surrounding the property before committing to a purchase.

When will the reform come into force?

Borg also raised concerns over a provision allowing the minister to establish different commencement dates for different parts of the legislation.

She warned that this could create uncertainty over when the proposed measures would actually come into force, calling on the minister to provide a clear timeline for the reform's full implementation.

Why does Malta need the reform?

Borg pointed out that 44% of third-party planning appeals filed last year were successful, arguing that the figure highlighted the importance of introducing the reform.

However, Borg insisted that the underlying reasons behind the growing number of appeals must also be addressed.

She argued that Malta's planning framework is characterised by conflicting policies, guidelines, and inconsistent interpretations, resulting in incorrect decisions that subsequently have to be challenged.

Borg questioned why such disputes should have to reach the appeals stage in the first place, insisting that the problems must be addressed earlier in the planning process.

In favour, but not quite enough

Ultimately, she argued that introducing further legislation would not be enough to address the deeper problems facing the planning sector, warning against adding more bureaucracy to a system already struggling with public mistrust.

She stressed that the shortcomings of a few operators should not tarnish the reputation of the entire construction industry, arguing that the real problem lies in how development is planned, regulated and designed.

Borg concluded that construction itself is not inherently negative, pointing to the architectural beauty of buildings and streets abroad as evidence of what the sector can achieve when proper planning and aesthetic considerations are prioritised.