A recent legislative proposal, Bill 143, now affirms the Planning Authority’s powers to establish alignment schemes (the ‘blue line’) for the first time on sites where no formal alignment previously appeared on the map server – this, without the need for further procedural steps.
The Bill specifically states:
“In paragraph (f) of sub-article (1) of article 38 of the principal Act immediately after the words ‘their interpretation on site’ there shall be added the words ‘and to introduce alignment for the first time on sites previously without established alignment schemes, without the need for further procedures’.”
Currently, Article 38(1)(f) of the Development Planning Act (Chapter 552 of the Laws of Malta) briefly states:
“(f) to regulate alignment and levelling schemes and their interpretation on site.”
This wording historically raised concerns over whether introducing new alignment schemes implicitly requires additional procedural safeguards such as public consultation, typically part of Planning Control (PC) processes.
However so, recent judicial guidance from the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) in the case Scicluna Enterprises (Gozo) Limited vs Planning Authority (Appeal No. 70/2024, decided on 30 April 2025) had clarified the matter. The case concerned a dispute over the issuance of a planning permit for residential development in Kercem, Gozo. The appellant contested the approval of a building façade facing an allegedly unschemed road (Triq ta’ Lonzi), arguing such changes required formal amendments to the local plan.
The Court specifically addressed this issue, stating:
“Il-fatt waħdu li l-allinjament immarkat bil-kulur blu ma jaqtax ma’ din l-aħħar triq iżda jibqa għaddej tul Triq Għar Ilma ma jfissirx li Triq Lonzi jew Trejqet Lonzi ma kinitx triq pubblika.”
Translated:
[The mere fact that the alignment marked in blue does not intersect with this road but continues along Triq Għar Ilma does not imply that Triq Lonzi or Trejqet Lonzi was not a public road.]
[As an important aside, it should be noted that the Court’s understanding of a ‘public road’ in this context is not dependent on whether the land has been formally expropriated and compensation provided under Land Authority laws. Instead, it hinges on whether the road is formally schemed by the public authority in its local plan and consequently available for public use once opened, based on the Roman law principle of diritto di transito.]
Thus, the Court rejected the appellant’s argument, affirming the Authority’s practical discretion in alignment matters. Chief Justice Chetcuti emphasized that roads appearing in the Temporary Provision Schemes (TPS) of 1988 and historical survey sheets (e.g., from 1968) require no re-approval unless explicitly altered by newer plans. The Court further referenced Appeal No. 31/2021, decided on 16 February 2022, reinforcing the principle that historical or TPS-documented roads do not necessitate additional procedural formalities or re-approvals unless expressly changed.
It could be said that Bill 143 builds on this judicial interpretation.
Still, whether this enhanced statutory clarity significantly improves planning efficiency or diminishes procedural safeguards remains a crucial discussion point.
