These Are The Proposed Planning Reforms Kamra Tal-Periti Support, Object To And Clarified
Kamra tal-Periti has released in-depth analysis reports on the two planning reform bills – welcoming some amendments, objecting to others and dispelling misinterpretations of a number of them.
This comes after a wave of controversy followed the proposal of Bills 143 and 144 – which environmental activists argue will dismantle all legal safeguards Malta has in the planning sector.
As key stakeholders in the field, the Council of Kamra tal-Periti (KTP) went through the bills with a fine-toothed comb before it released a statement.
In its reports, the Council outlined support for some proposals and objected to others. The council also clarified misinterpretations circulating in the media as a result of a widespread knee-jerk reaction to the proposals.
Amendments Supported by KTP
Bill 143
Article 10 – Scheduling Orders
Proposal to make scheduling order lists available at the Authority.
Recommendation: Recommends public notification for descheduling or reconsideration of scheduling decisions.
Article 13 – Representations
The amendment requires that all representations clearly explain the concerns raised, referring specifically to planning policies and relevant environmental and planning issues.
Misinterpretation: The amendment restricts public rights to object.
KTP Clarifies: Representations have always needed to be based on valid planning grounds, as set out in law. Objections are more likely to succeed if representees seek early advice from professionals like architects or lawyers. Public can still raise planning concerns up until DPAR replies; professionals can be brought in at late stages.
Article 14 – Validity of Permits
Introduces the possibility for the Planning Minister to regulate the duration of permits by legal notice.
KTP Comment: “There is nothing particularly concerning about this. However, a new power is given to the minister to reinstate the validity of a permit after it has expired.”
Recommendation: It is recommended that the minister’s powers apply only to general cases, not individual permits, and that any regulations go through public consultation. Expired permits that were refused renewal should not be reinstated.
Articles 16 and 17 – Correction / Revocation / Modification of Permits
The amendment introduces a formal process to correct permit errors, as long as they don’t change the original decision.
Recommendation: There are concerns that the amendment could be misused to make significant changes to permits without the right to appeals. To address this, KTP proposes two safeguards: corrections that alter the original decision should be invalid, and registered objectors should be allowed to participate and appeal if the changes raise valid planning issues.
Bill 144
Article 29 – Time Periods for Filing Appeals
The article shortens the appeal period before the EPRT from 30 to 20 days, starting from the date the decision is published in the Government Gazette – not the hearing date – typically allowing a 10 to 15 day buffer.
KTP Comment: The Council has no objection to reducing the appeal period to 20 days, viewing it as part of a broader reform to speed up the process while keeping permits suspended during appeals. However, it is also open to keeping the 30-day period, as long as the total appeal timeline remains within the proposed ten months.
Article 31(2) – Grounds of Appeal by Third Parties
Grounds of appeal must be based on objections raised during the site notice period and the two weeks for responding to the case officer report, but additional submissions made in response to plan changes requested by the Planning Board are also valid grounds for appeal.
KTP Clarifies: Claims that appeal grounds are limited to the initial 30-day objection period are incorrect and not supported by the Bill’s wording. The Kamra tal-Periti has no objection to this article.
Objected-To Amendments
Bill 143
Article 7 – Hierarchy of Documents
The provision proposes that in case of conflict, the most recently published planning document should prevail—despite existing hierarchies placing national plans like SPED at the top. KTP argues this is illogical, as lower-level documents should follow, not override, higher-level strategic plans.
Article 8 – Minor Modifications
The amendment allows the Authority to make so-called “minor” changes to development plans, including rezoning ODZ areas and altering building types – changes KTP says are far from minor. They argue this undermines sustainable planning, bypasses proper processes like new local plans and environmental assessments, and should be removed entirely.
Recommendation: Delete the article and instead launching a full planning reform. It offers to lead this process, as it did with building regulations, arguing that Malta’s current speculative system has damaged the environment. Piecemeal changes to planning documents are unsustainable and undermine long-term development goals.
Article 18 – Making of Regulations
The provision eliminates the minister’s obligation to hold public consultations, limiting input on regulations to internal discussions within the Authority.
Recommendation: Reinstate consultation period and extend to 6 weeks.
Article 20 – Surveillance Powers
The amendment expands the Authority’s surveillance powers but includes no safeguards for privacy or data retention.
Recommendation: Safeguards should be added to prevent the Authority from keeping surveillance data indefinitely, especially when no illegal activity is found, to protect individuals’ privacy
Article 21 – Cut-Off Date for Legality
The amendment proposes shifting the legal cut-off date for recognising development from 1967 to 1978.
KTP Comment: The proposal likely aims to address gaps in 1967 aerial imagery for Gozo and ODZ areas. KTP believes its impact should be thoroughly assessed and discussed before being implemented.
Article 22 – Notices
The amendment removes the index of enforcement and stop notices, though no clear reason is given.
Recommendation: KTP proposes creating a publicly accessible register for all enforcement, stop, and breach notices, similar to what’s planned for scheduled properties.
Bill 144
Article 21 – Frivolous or Vexatious Appeals
The article allows the Tribunal to issue a non-appealable fine of up to €5,000 for appeals it deems frivolous or vexatious.
Recommendation: KTP agrees on the need to limit frivolous appeals but warns the fine could discourage valid objections. It recommends making the fine proportionate to the project’s scale and allowing it to be appealed, without affecting the permit holder.
Article 33(5) – Modification of Plans by Tribunal
Allows for the Tribunal to order the reduction of the intensity of the development without consulting with the interested parties or external parties.
Recommendation: If the Tribunal modifies a permit on its own, all parties should first be allowed to respond. Such proposals should come from independent experts, and any modification must be open to appeal—not treated as a factual determination.
Article 44 – Right of Appeal from EPRT Decisions
The new wording replaces the general term “aggrieved parties” with a specific list, which has the effect of excluding applicants or permit holders from appealing when the case is initiated by a third party or external consultant.
Recommendation: Revise wording to address anomaly.
Article 46 – Court of Appeal (PA decisions)
The article allows the Court of Appeal to either confirm or annul a Tribunal decision. However, if annulled, the case is sent back to the Tribunal for a new decision—potentially letting it reduce development intensity without consulting affected parties.
Recommendation: KTP warns this provision could worsen speculative development by encouraging applicants to submit non-compliant proposals, hoping the Tribunal will simply scale them down. It argues this undermines good planning and recommends the Court of Appeal’s decision be final, with subarticles 46(1)(b), (2) – (4) deleted.
Article 51 – Court of Appeal (ERA decisions)
Objects for same reasons as Article 46.
KTP’s analysis highlights both the strengths and concerns within the proposed reforms, offering constructive recommendations to ensure better planning outcomes. The Council has reiterated its commitment to supporting a planning system that is transparent, consistent, and focused on long-term sustainability.
What’s your take on the proposed planning reforms?
READ NEXT: Watch: Protest Outside Mediterraneo Calls For End To Marine Mammal Captivity In Malta
