Projects may be halted for 10 months, but permits cannot be revoked

Construction projects will be suspended for up to 10 months while planning appeals are being decided, according to a government bill presented in parliament.

The current appeals system has long generated controversy for allowing construction to proceed while appeals are pending.

This frequently led to absurd situations in which developments were ruled to be illegal long after they were fully built.

A reform to the appeals system was first approved by the cabinet in late 2023 but the details have remained under wraps until now.

Bill 144, officially titled the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal Act, which passed its first reading on Wednesday, will set deadlines for the two bodies that hear appeals: the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) and the appeals court.

Appeals against initial decisions by the Planning Authority are filed with the EPRT, which must decide the case within five months, although this can be extended by a maximum of one month in certain circumstances.

If an applicant or objector is unhappy with the EPRT’s decision and files an appeal in the law courts, the judge overseeing the case will have to hold a hearing within two months and deliver a decision no longer than two months later, with the entire process lasting a total of four months. This can be extended under certain circumstances, by a maximum of a further two months.

In general, the appeals court decision must conclude proceedings within 10 months from the date of the Planning Authority’s original decision. If the court fails to hand down a judgment within that time, the developer can begin work.

A project may be halted for a maximum of 10 months across two rounds of appeals but the permit itself remains valid throughout and cannot be revoked by the court. If the court of appeal fails to issue a decision within five months, the permit is no longer suspended and works can begin.

Even if the appeal is eventually upheld, any construction carried out in that five month window is not invalidated unless the permit was for sanctioning illegal works.

The courts will no longer have the authority to outright revoke a permit. Instead, they will revert the case back to the EPRT, for the application to be revised and reviewed once again.

Currently, courts can scrap a permit altogether, sending it back to the drawing board and forcing the applicant to file a fresh application if they wish to revive plans.

Under the new rules, the permit will return to the EPRT stage, with the applicant expected to amend plans in line with the court’s feedback.

The process would then kick off again, with the amended application once again reviewed by the EPRT and, potentially, the courts, in case of another appeal.

Sources said the new system is designed to stop the rapid continuation of works during the appeals process but also ensure that objectors do not employ tactics that delay proceedings unnecessarily.

Objector cannot introduce new reasons for their objection when filing an appeal

The PA reform will also reduce the number of days in which planning appeals can be filed, bringing it down to 20 days from the current 30. Those who contest the EPRT decision will also have 20 days to submit their appeal in court.

The PA and the third party involved in the appeal will then have another 20-day window in which to submit their replies to the appeal, before the tribunal engages experts, gathers witnesses and holds its sittings

These changes have been tabled in parliament through Motion 391, the Development Planning (Amendment) Bill, and Motion 390, the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal Bill, and passed their first reading on Wednesday.

The PA reform will also see several changes to how objectors file their objections to the project.

In practice, someone will be able to object to a project during a planning application’s initial objection period, as is currently the case, but will also be able to file an objection citing new reasons for objecting in the 10 days following the publication of the case officer’s report.

However, if the permit is granted, the objector cannot introduce new reasons for their objection when filing an appeal and will only be able to make reference to the issues they had previously highlighted.

And although the public will still be able to submit anonymous objections to a proposal, they will need to submit their name, ID number and email address if they plan to eventually appeal the final decision.

The reason behind this, sources claim, is that this will mark the first time that the appeals court will process cases entirely digitally, requiring these contact details for the case to be taken forward.

On Friday Moviment Graffitti slammed the Bill, which was tabled together with another updating the develoment planning act, saying they would dismantle "nearly all remaining legal safeguards ... inflicting irreversible damage on our country's planning system and environment". 

Graffiti added that the Bills “severely restrict” the public’s right to appeal planning decisions and appeals would be limited to legal issues raised during the objection phase, subject to “unrealistic” submission deadlines, handled through an “inaccessible” process.Moreover, the Tribunal would be granted excessive discretionary powers, including the ability to alter plans mid-process and remove the courts’ authority to revoke a planning permit.