ADPD-The Green Party officials today participated in the action in front of Parliament called by Moviment Graffitti and environmental organisations.
ADPD-The Green Party Deputy Chairperson Carmel Cacopardo explained the authoritarian streak in the Prime Minister’s proposed planning reforms and how these make a mockery out of a supposedly democratic planning process.
“We have serious concerns about the proposed planning reforms introduced via Bills 143 and 144. The government presents the proposed legislation as a streamlining exercise designed to enhance efficiency and flexibility. This could not be further from the truth. As a matter of fact the proposals represent a dangerous rollback of democratic safeguards, environmental protections, and public accountability in land-use planning. The reforms favour developers at the expense of the public interest. They will lead to the deepening of the institutional capture of the Planning Authority (PA) by political and commercial interests.”
“The bills reinforce a long-standing pattern of regulatory weakening that allows powerful developers to bend planning rules to their will. One of the most contentious changes is the empowerment of the Land Use Planning Minister to reinstate expired development permits—potentially overruling court decisions that had struck them down. The primary candidates at this point most probably are the Ta’ Xbiex Marina Capitanerie and the Villa Rosa development. This would be an authoritarian override of the legal process.”
“Another major area of concern is how the bills narrow the channels through which citizens and civil society can engage with the planning system. Under the proposed new legislation, any submission from the public would need to meet a highly technical standard, effectively limiting meaningful participation to experts and well-resourced actors. This requirement risks silencing grassroots objections and turning already weak community consultation into a procedural formality.
Furthermore, the bills propose reducing the timeframe within which third parties can appeal planning decisions. This is especially harmful to NGOs, residents, and other stakeholders with limited resources, who may struggle to marshal legal challenges within tighter deadlines. This restriction also undermines Malta’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention, which enshrines the right of public access to environmental justice.”
“Another controversial element of the reforms is the amendment to Article 72 of the Development Planning Act, which removes environmental impact as a mandatory consideration when considering a development application. This change exposes Malta to the risk of infringement proceedings by the European Commission, as it directly contravenes EU environmental law. It will further accelerate the degradation of Malta’s natural and built heritage.”
“The proposed reforms are regressive in nature. While the government may argue that the changes are necessary to modernise planning and promote economic development, the bills as structurally skewed toward deregulation and centralisation of power. Rather than addressing deep-seated problems in Malta’s planning system—such as outdated local plans, lack of transparency, and weak enforcement—the reforms will make matters worse. They risk transforming planning from a rules-based public service into a discretionary system dominated by political and commercial interests. Malta is navigating a jungle in which institutional integrity, citizen rights, and environmental protection are steadily being overgrown by unchecked development.”
