A 2018 protest by Graffitti activists at the Planning Authority (Image: Moviment Graffitti)Moviment Graffitti has dubbed two contentious planning bills introduced to parliament this week as nothing short of a “full-scale takeover by developers” that will inflict irreversible damage on Malta’s planning system and environment.
The activist group expressed shock and outrage at the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal Act 2025 and amendments to the Development Planning Act, both tabled on Wednesday 23 July without any public consultation or engagement with NGOs.
The bills were introduced just as parliament prepares to adjourn for summer recess, when public attention typically wanes from political matters.
“These bills effectively represent a developer’s wish list, dismantling nearly all remaining legal safeguards,” Graffitti charged in a strongly worded response. The organisation highlighted what it considers the most alarming provisions, warning they would fundamentally undermine Malta’s planning system.
Among the most concerning changes, the bills would grant the Planning Authority’s Executive Council sweeping powers to alter Local Plans without restrictions. This represents a significant departure from current practice, where such changes require extensive consultation and justification. The legislation would also elevate planning policies issued by the Planning Authority above Local Plans, effectively inverting the traditional hierarchy of planning documents.
Perhaps most controversially, the bills would allow the Planning Board to deviate from established planning policies and, in some circumstances, disregard environmental considerations entirely. Graffitti argues this creates a system where planning decisions could be made based on political or commercial considerations rather than sound planning principles.
The bills introduce substantial restrictions on the public’s right to appeal planning decisions, a cornerstone of Malta’s democratic planning process. Under the proposed changes, appeals would be limited to legal issues that were specifically raised during the objection phase of applications. This means citizens could not challenge decisions on new grounds, even if significant problems become apparent only after a permit is granted.
The legislation also imposes what Graffitti describes as “unrealistic deadlines” for submitting appeals, potentially making it impossible for community groups and individuals to mount effective legal challenges. The appeal process itself would become less accessible, with proceedings handled through what the organisation characterises as an inaccessible system.
Particularly troubling for environmental groups is the extensive discretionary powers the new tribunal would possess, including the ability to alter development plans midway through the appeal process. This could fundamentally change the nature of a development even after objectors have made their case based on the original proposal.
In what Graffitti considers the most astonishing provision, the bills would remove the courts’ authority to revoke planning permits. This would eliminate one of the few remaining checks on the planning system, effectively making Planning Authority decisions final regardless of how flawed they might be proven to be.
The Development Planning Amendment Act introduces several other concerning changes. It extends the definition of “illegal works” to cover only developments built after 1978 rather than 1967, potentially legitimising decades of unauthorised construction. The bills also grant the Planning Authority enhanced surveillance powers and reduce compensation requirements when development is discontinued.
The legislation would allow the Authority to introduce road alignments “for the first time on sites previously without established alignment schemes, without the need for further procedures.” Critics argue this could facilitate development in areas previously considered unsuitable for construction.
The bills also strengthen “vested rights” for developers, making it harder to challenge ongoing developments or uses. Once a development permission is lawfully implemented, it would become extremely difficult to revoke, even if circumstances change significantly.
Environmental groups have been increasingly vocal about Malta’s planning system in recent months. A coalition of leading environmental and heritage organisations issued urgent calls for reform of Malta’s planning appeals framework, with many environmental groups criticising the flawed planning appeals law, which continues to allow large-scale construction projects to proceed even while under legal appeal.
In January, Graffitti activist Andre Callus slammed the government for not yet reforming planning appeals law as promised in 2023, describing the situation as “the dictatorship that is here in our country – the reign of the developers”.
Graffitti concluded its statement with a rallying cry, urging the public to “prepare for the fight ahead.” The organisation clearly sees these bills as a pivotal moment that could determine the future of Malta’s environment and planning system.
