Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1537460
PRIME Minister Robert Abela first an- nounced the urgent need for reforms to the planning appeals legislation in May 2023. Less than five months later, in September 2023, he took to Twitter to state: "Cabinet approves a fairer system for planning appeals. Measure will sus- pend the commencement of construction works until the appeal process would be exhausted." However, despite these as- surances, tangible change remains elu- sive. Illegal structures prevail. Under the present absurd circum- stances, construction works can com- mence and be completed even while the development permission is under ap- peal by third party objectors. Objectors must first appeal to the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT). But once this process is over, objectors can then also appeal to a Court of Law. In the meantime, and until a judgment is given, the structures that can later be determined by the Court of Law to be illicit, can be erected. On 30 July 2024 the Planning Author- ity sanctioned, through a summary ap- plication, a Joseph Portelli development of penthouses that was deemed illegal by the Court of Appeal earlier that same year, with a suggested fine of €150. The penthouses had, of course, already been constructed when the Appeals Court sentence revoking the permit was pro- nounced. Din l-Art Ħelwa, at great expense, had lost the original appeal to the EPRT and then won the case in court. One would have thought that the process would have ended there with the removal of the illegal structures. However, the PA went on to sanction the structures once again, with impunity from the law and in direct defiance of the court ruling. Din l-Art Ħelwa, once again at great ex- pense, requested the revocation of the sanctioning permission through anoth- er procedure, but this was turned down by the Planning Board; a clear indica- tion of the ongoing impunity and disre- gard for the judicial rulings. This is not an isolated case. Such cases expose the systemic flaws in our planning enforce- ment and appeal processes, which often allow illegal developments to persist. Although the prime minister pledged reform, legislative amendments ad- dressing these issues and incongruities have yet to materialise. In an interview to the press last week, Abela admitted that the amended legis- lation has been long in the making but will be announced imminently. What reforms are planned? Will there not be a public consultation period? Of par- ticular concern is the fact that he de- clared that the time period to submit appeals to the EPRT will be shortened. He also made a number of misleading assertions in the process. He said that if one had to analyse the appeals made to the EPRT, the majority of appeals are submitted by applicants for development permissions that are refused and not by third party objectors. He tried to give the impression that the applicants for refused permissions are suffering the same consequences as third-party objectors. They are not, and there is a critical distinction between the two scenarios. If an application for development permission is refused but the decision is under appeal, the structures cannot be erected while the appeal is underway because the permit does not exist. This is evidently not the case for third-party objectors and civil society. The present period of 30 days from the publication date of the decision to appeal to the EPRT should not be short- ened. Perhaps, only the time period to appeal against refusals should be short- ened, especially since these are in the majority! But this would be discrimina- tory. The prime minister also suggested that the reasons to object to proposed developments are usually made earlier in the process through the original rep- resentations and submissions. He hint- ed that the research and work would al- ready have been carried out long before the appeals stage is reached. This asser- tion does not take cognizance of the fact that revised drawings and amendments are often submitted by applicants right up to the end of the whole planning process. Often plans are amended even after the final Planning Commission or board hearings and decisions, or even as minor amendments long after permis- sion is issued. Representations on these later changes obviously cannot be an- ticipated. And there should be no room for speculation in these matters. Some third-party objectors might have their own valid personal reasons for opposing certain proposed develop- ments. NGOs and civil society groups, however, object to proposed develop- ments that do not conform to policies or that raise environmental concerns. Some developments are clearly not in the interest of the general community and its wellbeing. Of these latter pro- posed developments, there are plenty. NGOs and civil society are filling a void and providing a selfless service, at a considerable expense, which the State and authorities should occupy and per- form. Reducing the time allowed for NGOs to carry out this service on behalf of the community is clearly a disdainful move that would only serve to fleetingly mollify some developers. And, after all, in the grand scheme of things, what dif- ference are a few days going to make to the Portellis of this world? The promised legislation to imple- ment the suspension of development permissions under appeal must be en- acted without further delay, but for the good of all. In an interview to the press last week, Abela admitted that the amended legislation has been long in the making but will be announced imminently. What reforms are planned? Will there not be a public consultation period? 6 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 13 JULY 2025 OPINION Patrick Calleja Planning reform on the horizon, illegal buildings on the skyline Executive president Din l-Art Helwa NGOs and civil society are filling a void and providing a selfless service, at a considerable expense, which the State and authorities should occupy and perform (Photo: Moviment Graffitti)