Back in May 2023, Prime Minister Robert Abela promised legislative reforms to Malta's planning laws.  The intention behind those reforms was so that when an approved planning application is appealed, then development on the project in question cannot begin before the appeal process is concluded.

The idea of the reform is certainly positive: too often are there contentious construction projects granted even more contentious approvals by the Planning Authority that are then appealed and have their permits revoked by either the Environment Planning and Review Tribunal (EPRT) or the courts.

The problem is, however, that by that point the proverbial horse would have already bolted from the proverbial stable door. 

In plenty of cases, by the time the appeals process is concluded, the work on the development in question will be already going full steam ahead or even be completed - as in the case of the latest such case, concerning Joseph Portelli's business partner's illegal swimming pools in an ODZ in Sannat.

A court decreed that both the PA and the EPRT had misinterpreted planning laws in their justification to grant Portelli's business partner his swimming pools for a block of apartments, and therefore revoked the permit.

But the swimming pools had already been built.  Of course, the Planning Authority did not actually lift a finger when it came to enforcing against the illegality - instead Portelli and his business partners had enough time to file an application to sanction the illegality.

The PA's reluctance to act in such cases is par for the course - and either way, many times the damage has already been done.  Let's take the massive Mistra Village project for example: its permit was under appeal for several years, and weeks before a verdict was to be handed down in court, works excavating part of the site - which part was land untouched by development - begun.

As it happened, the courts sent the appeal back to the EPRT, which subsequently confirmed the project's approval a year later.  If the appeal however were to be upheld - what was to be the remedy?  Untouched land would have already been excavated and destroyed beyond recognition.  There is no remedy for that.

These are situations that the new reforms pledged by the Prime Minister would avoid.  The problem is that the pledges do not appear anywhere close to becoming a reality.

Speaking this month, Abela did not give any timeframe for when it may be implemented but insisted that it "will be materialised."  Abela said that the reform must find a balance that is fair for everyone which does not allow people to abuse of the appeal system.

Abela said the government is working on creating a screening process that decides whether an appeal is genuine or not and punishes anyone who might abuse the appeal process.

This reads as if something of a prima facie system will be introduced in order for the courts or tribunal to determine whether there is merit to an appeal or not.  What depends here is how the law will define what constitutes an "abuse" of the appeals process where people can be punished - for instance, having an appeal rejected does not necessarily mean that the appeal is not genuine.

What is most worrying however is that the reform itself doesn't appear to be anywhere close to implementation.

The comparison with how the government has rushed through significant reforms to how a magisterial inquiry can be appointed doesn't make for pretty reading for where the interests of the government and the Labour Party really lie.