Five key takeaways from the controversial new planning law proposals

Two major revisions to planning laws were proposed by the government on Friday, on the eve of parliament’s summer break.

NGOs have already blasted the proposals as a "developers' wish list". Here are four key takeaways from the proposals: 

Limiting of appeals 

The appeal window for tribunal decisions has been narrowed to 20 days, down from 30.

Appeals must now be based only on arguments raised during the initial public consultation/objection period of a permit. 

This means NGOs and individual objectors will have to cite specific policies when objecting, to have any standing in future appeals.

To give a simple example:

If someone’s grandmother wants to object to an apartment block going up next to her, simply filing an objection saying the block will overshadow her garden will not be enough to give her legal standing in a future appeal.

Instead, grandma will need to file technical objections based on complex planning laws and policies.

The proposed amendments would also appear to exclude new legal or factual arguments that were not raised during the objection period, even if discovered later.

Appeals brought before the tribunal – a mandatory step before taking the issue to court – can now be shot down as vexatious.

The tribunal can even impose a fine of €5,000 on an appellant if the appeal is deemed frivolous or vexatious.

Narrowing of judicial oversight

Courts will no longer be able to directly revoke or amend planning permits, as was the case with the original permit for the DB Project in St George’s Bay, which was overturned due to a Planning Authority conflict of interest.

The revocation forced DB to file a fresh planning application in light of the revocation.

Under the new proposals, courts will only be able to confirm or annul a decision by the Environmental and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT).

If a decision is annulled by a court, it must be sent back to the tribunal for a fresh decision.

Members of the tribunal are appointed by the president, acting on advice of the Prime Minister.

A court's review of a planning permit will also be limited to assessing any legal errors, rather than assessing the facts or merits of a permit.

Works on a site subject to a disputed permit can be suspended for a maximum of 10 months, pending appeals before the tribunal and court of appeals. 

Increased PA discretion

The Planning Authority will be given new powers to override established policies, like the local plans.

Local plans regulate how land across Malta and Gozo can be used, zoned and developed.

Under the new proposals, the PA will be able to issue interpretative circulars that provide guidance, instructions, or clarification on the interpretation of the local plans and other relevant planning policies.

The Planning Board is explicitly empowered to deviate from policies based on "spatial, architectural, or contextual considerations".

Such deviations will not constitute an “error of law”, making any such decisions harder to appeal in court.

New ministerial powers

The Planning Minister will be granted new powers to revive expired permits.

This will help developers circumnavigate the need to apply for a new permit if the old one has expired.

It will give the minister power to enact regulations to allow for the reinstatement of a permit’s validity.

Updated definitions of illegal works 

The proposed law revises the definition of "illegal works," shifting the cut-off date from 1967 to 1978.

It also broadens the scope of "minor modifications" in planning applications. Previously limited to changes in road or building alignment (excluding height or zoning changes), the new definition now includes adjustments to height limits and land use classifications.

Additionally, activities like placing easily removable, non-visible objects or depositing inert material to restore original land contours are exempt from requiring a full development permit.