Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1542275
15 LOOKING BACK 2025 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 28 DECEMBER 2025 on planning overhaul unlikely wave of resistance even inside his own party ONE Friday afternoon in July, I was informed that two planning bills had been tabled in parlia- ment. Initially I was under the impression they were simple technical fixes aimed at address- ing the long-standing anomaly allowing development works to continue while appeals were pending. But as I waded through pages of legal jargon it became clear that this was a radical over- haul which eroded any certain- ties in the planning system. I told my editor that I needed more time to understand this earthquake. Yet, that evening, after publishing the initial news, I doubted that a country already scorched by the summer sun was in any mood to pore over the fine legal details of the bills. That assumption proved badly mistaken. A trojan horse for developers As scrutiny deepened, it be- came evident that the issue which was meant to justify the reform—the absurdity of works continuing during appeals—had been used as a Trojan horse for something far more radical. What spurred the anger was not simply what the bills did, but how they did it—bundling a widely supported reform to- gether with sweeping changes that fundamentally altered the balance of power in planning decisions. Moreover, it gave the impression that one single re- form undermining the power of developers had to be reciprocat- ed by a gift pack. The original problem was re- al and long acknowledged. Al- lowing construction to proceed while appeals are pending has undermined the rule of law for years. Governments have to deal with outrage over developments like Joseph Portelli's massive ODZ swimming pools in Qa- la, which were first approved by the Planning Authority and then declared illegal by the law courts. Prime Minister Robert Abela conceded this anomaly in May 2023 during a Workers' Day speech, promising reform. Yet what followed was nearly two years of procrastination. By the time the bills were tabled in late July 2025, frustration had already accumulated. NGOs and residents had watched countless developments rise while appeals were still being heard. Expecta- tions were therefore modest and focused—suspend works during appeals, restore basic fairness and move on. Instead, Bill 143 and Bill 144 went wildly beyond that man- date. Bill 144 did deal with appeals— but even there, it narrowed them. The Environment and Planning Review Tribunal's factual find- ings would become final, with courts confined to points of law. Given that the tribunal's mem- bers 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 clas- sifications including ODZ land, and increase building heights. The timing itself was diabolical coinciding not just with the sum- mer lull but also with an internal leadership contest in the parlia- mentary Opposition. This is where anger hardened into mobilisation. Discretionary powers The bills also created a new hi- erarchy of planning policies, with the most recent policy prevailing over older ones such as SPED and local plans. In practical terms, this dismantles planning certainty. Rules painstakingly developed over decades could be brushed aside by newer, more convenient policies. One clause even goes further by explicitly giving boards the power to de- part from established policies for specific "spatial" or "contextual" reasons. To critics, this marked a shift from a rules-based system to one driven by discretion—and discretion in Malta's planning context has long been synony- mous with political influence. NGOs quickly framed the legis- lation for what it looked like—a developer wishlist. Graffitti's la- bel stuck because it captured the cumulative effect of the changes. Each provision on its own could be defended as technical; togeth- er they amounted to a concen- tration of power that favoured large commercial interests over residents, objectors, and long- term planning. What makes the scale of mobi- lisation remarkable is how diffi- cult it is to rally people against abstract policy changes drafted in dense legal language by lawyers of the ilk of Robert Musumeci. Protests usually erupt around a visible eyesore—a tower, a valley, a street people know and love. Here, NGOs were asking people to mobilise against future conse- quences, legal hierarchies, and procedural shifts. Yet turnout was strong—not once, but twice. This was not accidental. The bills touched a raw nerve because they symbolised something broader—Labour's increasingly strained accommodation with developers. Opposition to the bills galvanised not just envi- ronmentalists, but left-leaning Labour supporters fed up with compromises that have little to do with the party's social-dem- ocratic roots. The protests cut across traditional political ge- ographies, including Labour strongholds. By early October, resistance had spilled into the streets. Thousands gathered in Valletta on 4 October under the banner "Ġustizzja għal Artna: Kill the Bills!". The size of the crowd sur- prised even organisers. A second escalation came on budget day, when NGOs protested outside parliament—a politically sensi- tive moment that governments usually control carefully. That protest mattered less for its slo- gans than for its timing since it demonstrated that planning reform had become electorally toxic. It also showed how the govern- ment was clueless in the face of non-partisan resistance, with the prime minister invoking cancer patients to justify a proposed amnesty on ODZ developments which accompanied the two bills. The battle for Labour's soul But inside Labour, cracks ap- peared. Party President Alex Sciberras publicly urged cau- tion, insisting that reform must not privilege developers over citizens' rights. His interven- tion mattered because it echoed unease felt by many within the party who saw the bills as com- promising Labour's soul. Had the government dealt first—and only—with the suspension of works, and launched a separate, transparent consultation on broader planning reform, much of the political damage could have been avoided. Confronted with this backlash, the government pivoted to "dia- logue". NGOs insisted both bills should be withdrawn. The prime minister has prom- ised there will be no action on the reform until a broad com- promise is reached but refused to withdraw the bills from par- liament. One thing definitely emerged from the whole affair—far from slipping through unnoticed, the bills strengthened NGOs, em- boldened dissent within Labour, and turned planning reform in- to a symbol of democratic and non-partisan resistance. JAMES DEBONO jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt One of two big protests in Valletta against government's planning reform (Photo: Jade Bezzina/MaltaToday) As scrutiny deepened, it became evident that the issue which was meant to justify the reform— the absurdity of works continuing during appeals— had been used as a Trojan horse for something far more radical