Malta's planning system is operating without a clear direction, PN MP and Shadow Minister for Planning Rebekah Borg said, adding that before the country can reform its planning laws, it must first answer one fundamental question: where does it want to go?

In an interview with The Malta Independent, Borg said Malta's planning framework has become increasingly fragmented, with outdated local plans, overlapping policies and a lack of certainty creating a system that no longer reflects the country's needs.

Rather than focusing solely on legislative amendments, she believes planning reform must begin with a national vision that is translated into every level of policymaking, from infrastructure and tourism to development and environmental protection.

"The first decision that anyone needs to make is where do we want this country to go," Borg said.

"From there, then you can start seeing what you want from the country, what you want from the locality, what you want from the street, what you want from specific areas. St Julian's and Attard are not the same place, but where do you want these places to go?"

She said that deciding the country's long-term direction should not fall solely within the remit of the planning minister but should instead be a Cabinet-wide exercise.

"There's Vision 2050, there's SPED (Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development), which is now being updated, but concretely, where do we want this country to go? Once you've decided where you want the country to go, then yes, you need to go on a micro level, as per the local plans."

'We are not planning properly'

Borg repeatedly returned to what she believes is the central weakness of Malta's planning system: the absence of a coherent long-term strategy.

Planning is often reduced to individual development permits, when it should instead determine the country's wider future, she said.

"When it comes to planning, we see planning as planning the building. Planning goes much wider. Where is this country going? What do we want from this country? Where are we going?"

She questioned whether the country's infrastructure is keeping pace with the scale of development taking place.

"While we are building at a rate of, I don't know how many miles per hour, are we having the same type of development being done on drainage, on electricity, on water, traffic and so many other issues? It's all interlinked."

Drawing on her engineering background, Borg said planning decisions should be guided by certainty rather than conflicting policies and interpretations.

"At the moment we have SPED, DC15, Local Plans. There are interpretations coming out of everywhere. There's no certainty."

She said the consequences are increasingly evident in the courts.

"We're seeing a number of cases even going through appeals to court, which are then sent back. There's no certainty when it comes to planning. Uncertainty is not good for anyone, be it the person in the street who is objecting as well as the developer."

"We are not planning properly. Well, there's no plan, really, for this country when it comes to a lot of things, but specifically when it comes to buildings."

Twenty-year-old local plans no longer reflect today's Malta

Among the reforms Borg believes should be prioritised is a complete overhaul of Malta's Local Plans, which date back to 2006.

She noted that the plans continue to dictate development decisions two decades later, despite Malta having changed dramatically.

"The direction we are now following is 20 years old, in a time before Airbnbs, before smartphones; literally a different reality."

While debate often centres on whether Local Plans should simply be updated, Borg said she believes a broader review of the planning framework is needed.

"This country needs a plan which is updated, which is detailed, which is bold, which is something we can be certain about in this day and age."

She stressed that reform should extend beyond Local Plans alone.

"It's not just Local Plans. We're talking about SPED, which has been due for revision, we're talking a number of layers. When the government talks about reform, I'm not exactly sure what they mean, because I think when they talk about reform, they mean the law. When you're talking about changing the Local Plans or updating the Local Plans or changing the system, that's also a reform," she said.

"A reform needs to be done from all over and let's start planning for today's age," Borg said.

Aesthetics should play a role in planning decisions

Despite frequently criticising Malta's planning system, Borg insisted she is not opposed to development itself.

"I am not against development, definitely not. I am against development without any plan. Overdevelopment, call it what you want."

She said that public frustration is driven not only by the amount of construction but also by the manner in which development has been carried out.

"The issue is not building. Parliament is a building. Everyone lives in a building. It's not about buildings. It's about how we build."

Borg said she believes aesthetics should play a much greater role in planning decisions.

"You can have Valletta, for example, which is built up, but if it's built up in a coherent, aesthetically pleasing way rather than a total disaster, it would help."

She pointed to tree-lined streets abroad as examples of development that remains visually attractive despite high levels of urbanisation.

"If we start building with a plan which is pleasant on the eye, aesthetically pleasing, I think the approach to development will soften. People are angry and that anger gets built up."

Borg said the problem has been intensified by years of uncoordinated development.

"One permit alone doesn't make a difference, but when you have a magnitude of permits which are issued without a general direction, it always goes down to having a plan."

She also acknowledged that while some developers operate responsibly, others have contributed to the sector's negative image.

"I met a contractor on site who told me he would never want his son to work in construction because he feels he is seen as a walking criminal. It's not true that they are all like that, but this is the perception, this is the anger, which is perpetrated by a few, and by an authority which, for the planning side, does not plan."

Construction success should be measured on site, not on paper

Drawing a distinction between planning and construction, Borg argued that while the two are closely linked, they are separate issues requiring different solutions.

"There is planning alone or with construction, and I believe that the two issues are very much separate," she said, noting that the Planning Authority and the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) perform different functions at different stages of a project.

While public debate often focuses on planning permits, Borg believes many people's frustrations actually stem from what happens once construction begins.

"Construction is the biggest problem and why we have incidents and not accidents," she said.

Having worked in the industry herself, Borg said the discussion in Parliament often fails to reflect the realities faced on construction sites.

"I worked on site, so I know what actually happens on the ground, and it's so different from the reality we talk about in here."

She drew a distinction between "accidents" and "incidents", arguing that although construction sites are inherently dangerous, many tragedies are preventable.

"A construction site is a dangerous site by its nature. There are certain elements which make a site more dangerous. Accidents cannot be avoided. Incidents, on the other hand, can be."

Borg said too much emphasis is placed on the number of laws introduced or inspections carried out, rather than on whether those measures are actually improving safety.

"I am scared that we are rating success when it comes to construction by how many laws we put in, by how many inspections the enforcement units do, which I'm not saying are bad. Most things are positive, but success is measured by what actually happens on site, by seeing a positive site, for example a contractor that causes no problems."

She added that while paperwork is necessary, excessive bureaucracy often keeps inspectors behind desks rather than out on construction sites.

"The BCA needs reform from beginning to end. Paperwork is important, but let's not get lost in bureaucracy. What happens is you get people spending time at a desk when they should be spending it on site."

'ERA is totally toothless'

Borg also spoke about the relationship between the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) and the Planning Authority, describing the current system as ineffective.

She rejected suggestions that the two authorities should simply be merged again, saying the environment extends far beyond planning alone.

"The whole point of having ERA on its own was to realise the environment is much wider and we need to have a holistic approach to the environment, which I agree with."

However, she argued that ERA currently has too little influence when planning decisions are taken.

"As it currently stands, the way ERA is working with the Planning Authority isn't working for sure."

"They are just a consultee at this point. ERA is totally toothless when it comes to planning permits."

Borg said strengthening ERA's role within the planning process formed part of the Nationalist Party's electoral manifesto and remains one of the reforms she wants to pursue.

Asked whether Malta had reached a point of no return after years of intensive development, Borg acknowledged that some areas had already changed irreversibly but insisted there was still much worth protecting.

"It's too late for certain areas," she admitted, but said that there are some beautiful UCAs and places which can still be saved.

Rather than attempting to reverse decades of development, she said the focus should now be on protecting what remains.

"It's not about turning the clock back now. It's about saving what we have."

She argued that every planning decision should fit within an overall vision for the country rather than being assessed in isolation.

"One permit alone doesn't make a difference, but when you have a magnitude of permits, which are issued without a general direction, then it always goes down to having a plan."