Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1538131
5 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 3 AUGUST 2025 INTERVIEW The following are excerpts from the interview. The full interview can be found on maltatoday.com.mt as well as our Facebook and Spotify pages. PHOTOS: JAMES BIANCHI / MALTA TODAY When development is debat- ed, local plans are almost always part of that conver- sation. The Labour gov- ernment criticises the PN administrations of the past over the local plans. Do you feel amending them would have been a better route for government to pursue? Let's be clear—the local plans were drawn up in the 1990s, and have their positives and negatives. They have site specific policies, and dictate the type of development that can be carried out in specific areas. As time went by, new policies were being issued. Every reform should be subject to proper public consultation, and be based on studies. If government wants to amend the local plans, government can do it. It tries to give the impression that it cannot, when it can do so. Reform should not come in the form of these bills. This is piecemeal legislation, which is very discretional. Even Kamra tal-Periti said this. You are insisting a lot on consultation. As journalists this week outside parlia- ment questioned the Prime Minister on the bills, and activists gathered for a press conference they were holding, we saw Andre Cal- lus going head-to-head with the prime minister. Robert Abela came back saying con- sultation will be carried out with different stakeholders. Do you believe him? I judge people's intentions through their actions not on what they say. If there really was good will in carrying out the public consultation, there would have been an invite for NGOs to make their written submissions. This did not happen. The only consultation, or better yet collaboration, or rather collusion… that was carried out was with the Malta Developers Association. The Planning Authority CEO said there wasn't wider consultation to prevent property speculation. With all due respect this must be a joke. You are consulting with those who have submissions and appeals in place, and are the best placed to take advantage of the reform and speculate in the background. Government's bill lays out how the Planning Board deviates from policies to respect the context of the proposed development. Isn't this a good thing? You go around and see buildings of different sizes on the same road, with sometimes large blank party walls… I am saddened to hear this argument being brought forward, as it is not truthful. It is a totally deceiving statement. We have the Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards (DC 15). This policy is almost all about context. The context is defined and there are policies in place on how to protect the context. Statements on how the proposed bill will prevent blank party walls are untruthful. There are policies in place for this already. We have a detailed guide. When the PA decides on a development application, it has to decide on certain criteria, which include environmental, sanitary and aesthetic factors. These have been removed—what does this mean? Will we be ignoring ERA? Will we forget the environmental aspects of development? So much for having a Climate Change Authority, Project Green and other supposed environmental entities. These are entities with big budgets and small balls… and small brains. There is no effective environmental protection. Why wasn't there any discussion or consultation with the environment ministry? How are we removing the environmental aspect from planning decisions? You have won a number of court cases challenging development permits. With this new law, will your work be made harder, or will you be cut out completley? Has the law been written to eliminate people like you from the equation? This law is there to neutralise the right to access to justice in environmental and planning cases. It is clear that those who authored the bill leafed through all our the appeals we have won over the years, and found a way of including legal provisions which would neutralise those victories, or in the future allow for similar development to be carried out. This exercise was carried with malice. I'm going to take you back to 2006 to that famous post- er 'Vote George, Get Lorry'. Is today a question of 'Vote Robert, Get Lorry'? They criticise George Pullicino so much for the rationalisation exercise and extending development zones, but today they are proposing increasing building heights, they are proposing change of use, they are removing access to environmental justice. This is a roll back to before Lorry Sant's time; to feudal times, where the minister or the prime minister do as they please.