The government has decided to launch a public consultation process on its controversial planning reforms, following immense public pressure. But the way the consultation process is being handled is nowhere near good enough.

The government, in the middle of summer when people are more focused on spending time at the beach and on holidays, tabled two bills in Parliament which would drastically reform planning laws. The main point of the reform was meant to be to suspend the execution of planning permits while they are under appeal - a change that is needed. But the government used this to introduce other proposals which raised serious concern and would damage existing safeguards. NGOs immediately spoke up, calling the bills a "developer's wishlist." Among other things, the government's proposed reforms suggest that recent policies could be given more importance than local plans, and would mean that courts won't be able to directly revoke planning permits.

The presentation of the bills came under heavy scrutiny from NGOs, the Nationalist Party and elsewhere. There was even criticism coming from within the Labour Party over the lack of consultation that took place.

"The presentation of these bills was an exercise in dishonesty and deceit," NGOs said. "Disguised as a much-needed reform of the planning appeals process, the Government attempted to rush through legislation that would dismantle nearly all existing safeguards in the environment and planning sectors, while seriously undermining the public's right to appeal," the NGOs continued.

The government finally bowed to public pressure and launched a consultation process on the bills, and also on legal notices. But the process itself is not being handled correctly, and is a far cry from what a consultation process on such a major issue that received so much backlash should look like. It is clear that the government did this just as a reaction to the public outcry.

Firstly, a consultation process of just one month, in the middle of summer at that when, as said, people are not focused on politics and bills, is way too short. Keep in mind that this is not on one, but on four pieces of legislation. It is telling of the government's intentions.

Secondly, for a real public consultation process to take place, the bills must first be withdrawn from Parliament. Only then can a real public consultation exercise on reforms, and on what needs to be different from the government's bills, begin. By keeping the bills in Parliament, the government is sending the message that these are the bills it wants.

The short consultation period, together with the bills being kept on Parliament's agenda gives the impression that this public consultation process is being done just for the sake of optics.

What the government proposed in the bills need to be drastically changed. Different legal amendments need to be introduced to truly improve the planning process in a way that benefits the people, rather than developers. Realistically speaking, the bills need to be taken back to the drawing board.

The government must listen to the eNGOs who are voicing their concerns, and also to residents' groups and urban planners as well as others. It must truly be open to changing what was proposed, and outright eliminating clauses that are clearly damaging.

A public consultation on reforms is needed, but it must be a real public consultation, not with bills already tabled in Parliament. And so the NGOs are absolutely right to call for the bills' withdrawal.