The Malta Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry has issued a strong warning against two proposed planning bills, arguing that they threaten to undermine transparency, public participation, and long-term economic competitiveness.

‎

In a detailed statement, the Chamber expressed “deep concern” over the piecemeal nature of Bill 143, which introduces changes to the planning system, and Bill 144, which affects judicial review processes. The organisation said the proposals amount to a series of “ad hoc changes” that risk further destabilising an already incoherent planning landscape.

‎

“These ad hoc changes defeat the purpose of comprehensive reform and instead foster a pick-and-choose approach,” the Chamber said, adding that the reforms should be delayed until a long-overdue review of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development (SPED) is complete.

‎

SPED, which dates back to 2015, was due for review in 2020. Five years on, the process has still not materialised, despite repeated assurances from the authorities. The Chamber argues that any new planning legislation should be grounded in an updated SPED and form part of a cohesive, holistic reform.

‎

According to the Chamber, such a reform must ensure that all policies are clearly defined, unambiguous, and aligned with a revised national strategy. The framework should also establish which policies take precedence, to reduce abuse and inconsistency in decision-making.

‎

Public Participation and Legal Access at Risk

A key concern raised by the Chamber is that the proposed legislation will reduce public access to the planning appeals process. By introducing new restrictions and the threat of financial penalties for unsuccessful appeals, the bills risk deterring civic engagement.

‎

“The threat of fines acts as a deterrent, thereby weakening participation and civic engagement in matters of national importance,” the statement said.

‎

It also warned that limiting the legal grounds for objection will make it more difficult for the public and civil society organisations to hold the Planning Authority to account.

‎

Increased Discretion and Political Interference

The Chamber said the proposed changes would introduce “dangerous avenues for subjective interpretation,” particularly by expanding discretionary powers for the Minister, the Planning Board, and other bodies within the Planning Authority. This, it argued, could lead to more political interference, further eroding transparency and consistency in the planning process.

‎

“These new powers risk undermining rule of law by introducing lack of clarity and lack of cohesion across the system,” it said.

‎

Encouraging Rule-Breaking

‎The Chamber also criticised the continued regularisation of illegal developments, describing it as a policy that rewards rule-breaking and creates an unlevel playing field for ethical developers and investors.

‎

“This sends a message that flouting the rules pays off,” it said. “It undermines those who follow the rules from the start and damages long-term competitiveness and good governance.”

‎

A Broader Economic Concern

Framing planning as not just an environmental or regulatory issue, the Chamber said that poor policy is now threatening Malta’s long-term economic health. It cited damage to infrastructure, the urban and natural environment, and quality of life as symptoms of a broken system.

‎

“Malta’s planning regime must be an enabler of sustainable economic growth, not a source of clientelism and inequality,” it said.

‎

The statement concludes with a call for the government to halt the proposed bills and instead engage in “serious, transparent, and broad-based consultation” in line with the still-open Malta Vision 2050 public consultation. The Chamber noted that the bills currently on the table appear to contradict the government’s stated goals for sustainable development, citizen-centric planning, and heritage preservation.

‎

“If the public consultation on Malta Vision 2050 is still open,” the Chamber asked, “how can the government be introducing legislative amendments on one of the most important aspects of the Vision without proper consultation?”

‎

‎