Under the present framework of the Development Planning Act (Cap. 552), the renewal of development permissions is regulated by Article 72(4) and its provisos:
“(4) A development permission may be granted for a limited period but shall cease to be operative if the activity or development has not been completed within the period specified in the development permission, if any:
Provided that the Planning Board shall, on the application of the person holding the full development permission, renew the said permission on receiving a valid renewal application while the previous development permission is still operative, to such further period or periods as it may consider reasonable:
Provided further that where there has been a change in plans or policies applicable to the requested renewal development permission, these new plans and policies shall be taken into account unless the site subject to the application is already committed by the original development permission in relation to these plans and policies:
Provided further that if the applicant fails to submit the commencement notice relative to the permission, such development permission shall be considered as never having been utilised.”
In its current form, renewal is generally a straightforward process: if the application is made before the permit expires, the Planning Board is bound to renew it for such further period or periods as it deems reasonable. However, where the applicable plans or policies have changed, the Board must assess the renewal against these updated instruments, even if that means the development no longer complies. This embeds a strong “plan-led” safeguard: policy shifts can stop a renewal.
Bill No. 143 keeps the same basic framework but alters the balance between strict policy compliance and administrative discretion.
The second proviso to Article 72(4) remains unchanged:
“Provided further that the Planning Board shall, on the application of the person holding the full development permission, renew the said permission on receiving a valid renewal application while the previous development permission is still valid, to such further period or periods as it may consider reasonable:”
The third proviso is significantly re-cast:
“Provided further that where there has been a change in the applicable plans or policies since the original permission was granted, such updated plans or policies shall be taken into account in the assessment of the application for renewal:
Provided further that the Planning Board may, in its discretion and on the basis of justified spatial, architectural, or contextual considerations, decide to renew the previously approved permission notwithstanding such changes:”
Let us examine thsese changes.
First, the insertion of a formal override mechanism: while updated plans or policies remain a mandatory consideration, they are no longer an absolute barrier to renewal. The Planning Board will be able to renew a permit even if it conflicts with new policy, provided there is a justifiable spatial, architectural, or contextual rationale. This moves Maltese planning law from a strict “comply with current policy” model to a hybrid in which policy compliance is the default, but exceptions are now expressly authorised in statute.
Under the current Development Planning Act, the evidentiary burden for renewal of a full development permission is straightforward and largely mechanical. The first step for the decision-maker is to confirm entitlement: there must be clear proof that the applicant is the lawful holder of the permission, supported by documentary evidence such as the permit number and the title of ownership or authorisation, and that the renewal application has been lodged before the expiry date of the existing permission. This date-sensitive check is critical, as no renewal is possible once the permit has lapsed.
The second evidentiary requirement is to establish the current policy context. This means obtaining a certified copy of the plans and policies in force at the time of deciding the renewal, and producing a comparison against those that applied when the permission was originally granted. This comparison is not just for background: if it shows that relevant policies or plans have changed, the law obliges the decision-maker to apply those updated instruments in assessing whether the project should be renewed.
The third element is a compliance assessment. Here, the file should contain a clear matrix or analysis showing how the approved scheme measures against each relevant provision of the updated plans or policies. If the project complies, renewal follows. If it does not, the evidence must support a refusal unless the applicant agrees to amend the proposal to match current policy. In effect, the evidence must lead to a binary outcome: compliance equals renewal; non-compliance equals refusal. Finally, if renewal is to be granted, the decision-maker must record reasoning for the length of the renewal period, for example citing the scale of works or standard administrative practice.
Bill No. 143 keeps the first two evidentiary stages – proof of entitlement and proof of current policy context – but expands the third stage dramatically by introducing an override discretion. The same compliance assessment is still required, and the updated policy must still be considered, but if that assessment shows the scheme would fail under the new policy, the Board is no longer bound to refuse. Instead, the decision-maker may choose to renew the permission “notwithstanding” the policy change, provided the decision is justified on one or more of three defined grounds: spatial, architectural, or contextual considerations.
This new element creates a fresh evidentiary layer. If the override is to be used, the file must contain site-specific material that directly supports the chosen ground. For spatial justification, this might include expert reports on site layout, massing studies, or evidence of how the scheme relates to adjoining buildings and established alignments. Architectural justification would require plans, elevations, and design statements showing the proposal’s architectural coherence, quality of materials, and any heritage compatibility. Contextual justification could be supported by photographic surveys, historical maps, and analysis of prevailing urban form, demonstrating that the proposal maintains or enhances the area’s character.
In practical terms, under the current law, evidence of non-compliance with updated policy ends the renewal unless the scheme is altered. Under the proposed law, the same non-compliance could still lead to renewal, but only if the evidence demonstrates a clear, reasoned link between the scheme’s spatial, architectural, or contextual qualities and the decision to override. For example, a permit for an eight-storey building in an area newly down-zoned to six storeys could not be renewed under the current Act without lowering the height; under the Bill, it could be renewed if the evidence shows that all surrounding blocks are eight storeys, that the skyline would be harmed by stepping down, and that the original design contributes positively to the area’s architectural coherence.
Indeed, the renewal disputes brought before the Maltese courts in recent years reveal the interplay between Article 72(4) of the Development Planning Act and the principle that updated plans and policies must govern unless the site is already committed. This doctrinal framework — strictly applied in some contexts, flexibly navigated in others — is precisely the terrain that Bill No. 143 seeks to reshape. The following cases, taken in sequence, illustrate how the current law operates and how the proposed reform might have influenced each outcome.
In Vella vs Planning Authority & Joseph Attard (Court of Appeal, 13 March 2024 – App. 56/2023), the contested site lay in Triq Salvu Borg Olivier, Siġġiewi, and housed a long-standing cow farm. The renewal application, PA5528/17, followed earlier approvals — PA1744/06 and its renewal PA1730/11 — which had sanctioned alterations to the farm buildings. The third-party appellant argued that the application was procedurally flawed: the site being government land, a new clearance from the Lands Authority should have been obtained, the existing clearance dated from 2013, and policies affecting the site had since changed. Substantively, he cited the farm’s proximity to residential zones and the fact that it lay within a rationalisation area as reasons for refusal. The Tribunal found that the 2013 clearance remained valid, no changes to the approved development were proposed, and a valid commencement notice had been filed. The Court confirmed this, even accepting a late Lands Authority clearance submitted during appeal. Under Bill No. 143, this already permit-holder-friendly outcome would stand; the “contextual” override could have been invoked to reinforce the reasoning, given the continuity of use and unchanged physical form.
The Mistra Village case, Faenza Grima et vs Planning Authority & Gemxija Crown Ltd (Court of Appeal, 10 May 2023 – App. 77/2022), concerned a vast redevelopment scheme for the former tourist complex into four residential blocks with commercial uses and landscaped public space. PA6747/18 sought renewal of a 2013 permit. Objectors pointed to substantial policy changes — notably the FAR Policy 2014, DC15, and iSPED — and argued the site was not committed. The Tribunal, satisfied by a filed commencement notice, deemed the site committed and exempt from updated policy. The Court disagreed that a mere notice sufficed, holding that “commitment” required irreversible works, and remitted the case for fact-finding on the extent of works undertaken. If the site was uncommitted, updated policies might bar renewal. Under Bill No. 143, however, even a finding of non-commitment would not necessarily defeat the application: the Board could still renew on “spatial” or “contextual” grounds, pointing to the masterplanning, scale coherence, and public realm integration.
In Calleja et vs Planning Authority & Bezzina (Court of Appeal, 1 February 2023 – App. 54/2022), the site lay in Għargħur at the edge of an Urban Conservation Area, with part of the land within an Area of High Landscape Value and a Strategic Open Gap. PA02995/20 sought renewal of PA00481/13 for a residential block. No commencement notice had ever been filed for the original permit, which triggered the application of updated policy — iSPED and DC15 — under Article 72(4). The Tribunal remitted the case to the Authority for reconsideration under these updated instruments and for the environmental and heritage concerns of consultees to be addressed. The Court confirmed this approach. Under Bill No. 143, while the updated policy requirement would still be acknowledged, the Board could lawfully override it if justified by “spatial” or “architectural” considerations, such as integration with the UCA frontage. Yet the environmental sensitivities and open gap designation make such an override far from assured; in practice, refusal could still result if the evidentiary case was weak.
The rural operations context arose in B&B Property Development Co. Ltd. vs Planning Authority (Court of Appeal, 11 January 2023 – App. 15/2018), concerning PA1310/13 for the extension of an existing dairy farm in Ħal Ghaxaq to meet EU standards. The appellant alleged the original permit had lapsed before the renewal was validated, that the applicant’s ownership declaration was false, and that a policy change from the 2008 to the 2014 rural policy framework should have precluded renewal. The Tribunal found, and the Court confirmed, that the permit’s validity had been automatically extended under LN 158 of 2013, the ownership declaration complied with Article 68(3) of Cap. 504, and that the proposal did not increase herd numbers beyond the original approval. Under Bill No. 143, even if updated policy had been applied, the long-established farm use, proximity to the development zone, and unchanged operational character would strongly support a “contextual” override, making the outcome the same but with a stronger statutory anchor.
By contrast, in Michael Zammit (Go Fuels Ltd) vs Planning Authority (Court of Appeal, 30 April 2018 – App. 7/2018), the renewal PA7617/16 involved replacing an underground fuel tank at a petrol station in Pjazza Savina, Victoria, Gozo. Although the site had operated as a station for years, no works had begun under the relevant permit, and the Tribunal found the site uncommitted. This brought the 2015 Fuel Service Station Policy into play, which discouraged such stations in UCAs with traffic and safety concerns. Transport Malta objected on traffic management grounds, and the Tribunal also questioned whether the station was operational at all. The Court agreed that updated policy applied and justified refusal. Under Bill No. 143, the Board could, in theory, override the policy if “spatial” or “contextual” grounds could be proven, but here such grounds would be thin: traffic hazards, safety risks, and UCA incompatibility would make the exercise of the discretion improbable.
Finally, Lawrence Fino vs MEPA (Court of Appeal, 9 October 2013 – App. 85/2012) illustrates the strongest form of policy barrier. The site, near the Magħluq in Marsascala, had an approval history for an underground car park and beer garden dating to 1992, renewed in 2002. By the time PA8242/06 sought renewal, the 2006 South Malta Local Plan had designated the site as an Area of Ecological Importance, Site of Scientific Importance, Area of High Landscape Value, and Valley Protection Zone. Only topsoil removal had occurred — a reversible intervention — and the Tribunal deemed the site uncommitted. Updated policies, which carried strong presumptions against any such development, were applied and the renewal refused. The Court upheld this, noting there was no automatic right to renewal and that environmental zoning must prevail. Under Bill No. 143, the applicant could ask the Board to override the updated policy, but the evidentiary burden to show that the beer garden enhanced, rather than harmed, the protected landscape would be steep; without compelling proof, the discretion would almost certainly be exercised against renewal.
Viewed together, these cases show that Bill No. 143 would have its most tangible effect where the facts support a sympathetic spatial or contextual narrative — typically in long-established uses or coherent urban schemes — and little to no effect where refusals are rooted in strong, protective environmental or safety policies. Possobly, in Għargħur, Go Fuels, and Fino, the new discretion could be invoked but would likely be constrained by the substantive weight of the updated policy objections.
