Development permits would be automatically suspended while planning appeals are being heard under proposed reforms outlined by Prime Minister Robert Abela in Parliament, as the Government seeks to prevent construction from being completed before the legality of a project is finally determined.

Addressing Parliament, Abela said the reform was necessary to address longstanding problems in the planning system, where developers could begin work after obtaining a permit even while an appeal against the decision remained pending. He argued that this could leave developers, objectors and even people who had purchased properties facing uncertainty and potentially serious financial consequences.

Under the proposed legislation, a permit would be automatically suspended once an appeal is filed, with the suspension remaining in place until the proceedings are concluded and a final decision is reached. The proposals also introduce deadlines for decisions by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) and the Court of Appeal.

The EPRT would have six months to decide a case, while an appeal before the Court of Appeal would be subject to a four-month deadline, extendable by a further two months. The suspension would remain in force even if proceedings exceeded the stipulated timeframes.

Abela explained that, under the existing system, a development application could be approved by the Planning Authority and subsequently challenged by objectors. The dispute could then proceed before the EPRT and, depending on the outcome, the Court of Appeal.

However, he said the problem was that a permit could be acted upon while the appeal process was still ongoing, allowing construction to proceed before a final decision had been reached.

He argued that this had resulted in cases involving large buildings being constructed while legal challenges were still being heard. A developer might initially win the right to proceed with a project, only for that decision to be overturned later, potentially leaving a completed building without a valid permit.

Abela said such circumstances could cause injustice to developers who had acted on the permission granted to them, as well as to families who had invested in properties and to objectors whose appeals were ultimately successful but whose victory came too late to prevent the development from being completed.

He described the situation as one in which the right to appeal could become ineffective in practice if construction was allowed to proceed before the legal process was concluded.

The proposed reform aims to prevent this by suspending permits during appeals while introducing fixed timeframes to reduce delays and provide greater certainty to all parties involved.

Abela said the Court of Appeal would be expected to schedule a hearing within two months, deliver its judgment within four months and, where necessary, extend the period to a maximum of six months. Together with the proposed six-month timeframe for the EPRT, the changes aim to make the process more predictable and limit prolonged disputes.

The suspension would remain in place until a final decision, even where the prescribed deadlines were exceeded.

The Prime Minister described the reform as a necessary step towards improving the sustainability of the construction and planning sectors, arguing that the changes would not necessarily please everyone but were required to address longstanding shortcomings.

He said the proposals followed an extensive public consultation that attracted submissions from residents, non-governmental organisations, stakeholders and other interested parties. According to Abela, the Government had sought to incorporate a number of the suggestions received during the process.

He criticised the Nationalist Party for not submitting proposals during the Government’s consultation, arguing that the Opposition had instead conducted its own consultation exercise. He said the outcome of that separate process remained unclear.

Abela also defended the construction industry, describing it as an important contributor to Malta’s economy that should continue to be supported while adapting to changing circumstances and higher standards.

He said the sector had benefited the country for years but had historically operated with insufficient regulation. He referred to the establishment of the Building and Construction Authority under a Labour-led Government, saying the introduction of licensing requirements had helped address shortcomings in the industry.

Abela recalled that, before stronger controls were introduced, people could describe themselves as excavators and undertake such work without the licensing requirements now in place.

He argued that the sector needed to continue modernising and improving its practices, adding that the Government would continue to defend an industry that contributed directly to the economy while implementing reforms intended to make it more sustainable.

Despite the international uncertainty created by three major wars, Abela said Malta retained a degree of financial optimism because of the strength of its economy. He argued that the construction industry would remain an important economic component but needed to evolve in line with the changes being proposed.

In a separate part of his address, Abela criticised comments attributed to PN MEP candidate David Casa concerning the integrity of Malta’s institutions during proceedings involving the European Parliament.

Abela said the episode had embarrassed Malta internationally and damaged the country’s reputation. He insisted he would continue travelling to Brussels to defend Malta’s name.