Public spaces belong to everyone, yet across Malta, residents are increasingly finding themselves having to defend what should already be theirs.

Pavements, squares and other communal areas are essential parts of everyday life, but their accessibility is too often compromised by commercial interests, unauthorised structures and inadequate enforcement.

The recent removal of an illegal canopy in Sliema following enforcement action by the Planning Authority is a reminder of a problem that extends far beyond one establishment or locality.

While the removal itself is a positive development, it also raises an important question: why should protecting public space so often require complaints, public pressure or intervention by activists?

Authorities have a responsibility to ensure that public land is used appropriately and that planning regulations are respected.

This responsibility should not depend on whether an infringement attracts sufficient attention or becomes the subject of public controversy.

In a country as densely populated as Malta, every accessible public space matters.

Pavements should allow pedestrians to walk comfortably and safely, including parents with pushchairs, elderly people and persons with disabilities.

When these spaces become obstructed, the consequences extend beyond inconvenience, sometimes forcing pedestrians onto roads or making certain areas difficult to navigate.

There is, of course, a place for commercial activity in public spaces. Outdoor catering areas, for example, can contribute to the character of a locality, support businesses and create lively surroundings.

Malta's hospitality industry is an important part of the economy, and businesses should be able to operate within a clear and reasonable regulatory framework.

However, commercial activity cannot be allowed to take precedence over the public's right to access and enjoy shared spaces.

The balance must be maintained through clear rules, consistent enforcement and proper consideration of residents' needs.

What is particularly concerning is the impression that enforcement sometimes follows public complaints rather than preventing problems from developing in the first place.

Residents should not have to become investigators, campaigners or persistent complainants simply to ensure that regulations are followed.

Nor should voluntary organisations be expected to shoulder responsibilities that properly belong to public authorities.

Their work in drawing attention to infringements is valuable, but it should complement effective enforcement rather than compensate for its shortcomings.

The issue also concerns fairness towards businesses that respect the rules.

Establishments that obtain the necessary permits and comply with their conditions should not find themselves disadvantaged by competitors who occupy additional space without authorisation.

Consistent enforcement would therefore protect not only residents but also responsible operators, while reinforcing confidence that regulations apply equally to everyone.

Local councils, the Planning Authority and other responsible entities must work together to identify infringements promptly and address them before they become prolonged disputes.

Clearer information about permits and the conditions attached to them would also help residents understand what is permitted and what is not.

Ultimately, public space is not simply land that has yet to be occupied or developed.

It serves an important social purpose, providing room for people to move, meet and enjoy their surroundings.

Removing unauthorised structures is important, but preventing them from encroaching on public spaces in the first place should be just as much of a priority.

Protecting what belongs to everyone must become a routine responsibility, rather than a battle that residents repeatedly have to fight.