Article 97 of the current Development Act reads as follows:
“97. (1) If it appears to the Executive Council that an activity and, or development is being carried out without the grant of a permission and, or licence required under this Act or that any conditions subject to which such permission was granted in respect of any such activity and, or development are not being complied with or such activity and, or development is against this Act or regulations made under this Act, the Executive Council shall issue a stop notice to any such person carrying out such an activity and, or development:
Provided that when the illegal activity and, or development is limited to part of the site, the Authority may in its discretion issue a partial stop notice requiring the activity and, or development to be stopped forthwith only in relation to that part of the activity and, or development to where the illegal development subsists and not in relation to the whole development:
Provided further that no such notice shall be issued for any development carried out before 1967:
Provided further that the Executive Council may issue a warning notice in writing requiring illegal activity and, or development to be stopped forthwith prior to proceeding with the issue of a stop notice, which has to be abided with immediately on notification, provided that only one warning notice may be issued for the same infringement.
(2) A copy of the notices mentioned in sub-article (1) may also be served on any representative, builder, contractor or workman on the site and the Executive Council shall also affix such notices in a prominent position at a point of entry onto the site.
(3) The Executive Council shall, in the case of a stop notice issued under sub-article (1), also inform:
(a) the local council in whose locality the land mentioned in sub-article (1) is found;
(b) the perit responsible for the said works and the site manager, if known, that a stop notice as aforesaid has been issued by the Executive Council:
Provided that the non-compliance with the provisions of this sub-article shall in no case invalidate any notice issued under sub-article (1).
(4) If it appears to the Executive Council that any activity and, or development of land has been carried out after the coming into force of this Act without the grant of permission required on that behalf under this Act, or that any conditions subject to which such permission was granted in respect of any activity and, or development have not been complied with, the Executive Council may, having regard to the provisions of development plans, planning policies and any other material consideration, serve on the owner of the land or on the occupier of the land or on the person responsible for the acts mentioned in the notice or any combination thereof as the Executive Council deems most expedient, an enforcement notice and sub-article (3) shall also here apply, requiring such steps as may be specified in the notice to be taken within such time as may also be so specified for restoring the land to its condition before the activity and, or development took place or for removing such development or for securing compliance with the conditions aforesaid, as the case may be, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the aforesaid any such notice may, for the purpose aforesaid, require the demolition or alteration of any buildings or works, the discontinuance of any use of land, or the carrying out on the land of any building or other operations:
Provided that where the Executive Chairperson believes that there is an imminent danger to the environment, an emergency enforcement notice may be served on the above indicated persons without the need of consulting the other members of the Executive Council:
Provided further that an appeal from an emergency enforcement notice or the submission of an application for the retention on land of any buildings, works or development or to sanction the continuance of any use of the land to which the emergency enforcement notice relates shall not stay the operation of the emergency enforcement notice.
(5) The Executive Council shall register all stop notices and all other enforcement notices issued in terms of this Act in the index mentioned in article 57(2), and the provisions of the said article concerning indexing of conservation orders shall mutatis mutandis apply to stop and other enforcement notices in terms of this Act.
(6) Any notice made under this article shall contain a detailed description of the infringements being alleged and where applicable, a site plan indicating the land which is the subject of such a notice shall be annexed thereto together with any additional information as deemed appropriate by the Executive Council to clearly identify the alleged infringements.
(7) A notice under this article may include a combination of a stop notice and enforcement notice and shall be known as a stop and enforcement notice. Moreover a notice given under any of the provisions of this article, other than the immediate request stopping or prohibiting any further work or development or requiring the cessation of use, shall take effect at the expiration of such period, being not less than fifteen days and not more than sixty days after service thereof, as may be specified therein.
(8) When an application for development permission has been submitted before the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-article (7) –
(a) for the retention on the land of any buildings, works or development to which the enforcement notice relates; or
(b) to sanction the continuance of any use of the land to which the enforcement notice relates,
the operation of the notice, in respect of any requirement other than a requirement stopping or prohibiting any further activity and, or development or requiring the cessation of a use, shall be suspended pending the final determination of the application. If the permission applied for is granted on that application and it comes into operation, the enforcement notice shall cease ipso jure to have effect.
(9) Any application to regularise an activity or a development or an appeal to the Tribunal from a refusal, may be dismissed forthwith if a requirement in the notice stopping or prohibiting further activity and, or development, or requiring the cessation of a use, has not been complied with and there is evidence to show that the notice has not been complied with during the processing of the application or during the Tribunal sittings, or if any penalty or other payment for which any person has become liable under this Act in respect of the relevant activity or development has not been paid.
(10) The Executive Council may exercise its powers under article 100(1) notwithstanding that a second or subsequent application intended to regularise the illegal activity or development may have been filed with the Planning Board concerning the same or part of the same activity or site, irrespective of whether the said application is filed by the same applicant or by another applicant.
(11) Any person who feels aggrieved by any notice served on him may appeal against it to the Tribunal in terms of the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal Act, in which case the effects of the notice, other than the request stopping or prohibiting any further activity and, or development or requiring the cessation of a use, shall be suspended pending the final determination of the appeal”.
Meanwhile Bill 143 is proposing the following:
“Article 97 of the principal Act shall be amended as follows:
(a) in the second proviso to sub-article (1) thereof the words “before 1967” shall be substituted by the words “before 1978”;
(b) in sub-article (2) thereof the words “and the Executive Council shall also affix such notices in a prominent position at a point of entry onto the site” shall be deleted;
(c) sub-article (3) thereof shall be amended as follows:
(i) immediately after the words “also inform” there shall be added the words “by electronic means”;
(ii) in sub-paragraph (b) thereof the words “and the site manager” shall be deleted;
(d) sub-article (4) thereof shall be amended as follows:
(i) the words “after the coming into force of this Act” shall be deleted;
(ii) in the proviso thereof the words “to the environment” shall be substituted by the words “to the natural and built environment”;
(e) in sub-article (5) thereof the words “in the index mentioned in article 57(2), and the provisions of the said article concerning indexing of conservation orders shall mutatis mutandis apply to stop and other enforcement notices in terms of this Act” shall be deleted;
(f) in sub-article (11) thereof the words “Any person” shall be substituted by the words “Without prejudice to article 100(4), any person” and the words “in a final manner.” shall be substituted by the words “in a final manner:” and immediately thereafter there shall be added the following new proviso:
“Provided that the notification of the enforcement notice shall be revoked completely or partially, as the circumstances require, in the case of a person who shows either that the alleged development is lawful under this Act, or that he had no control over the alleged illegal development and had taken reasonable steps to prevent such development but without success.””
To make things more understandable — since there are several amendments scattered through the sub-articles — the version below shows the final wording as it will read if the Bill is enacted.
“97. (1) If it appears to the Executive Council that an activity and, or development is being carried out without the grant of a permission and, or licence required under this Act or that any conditions subject to which such permission was granted in respect of any such activity and, or development are not being complied with or such activity and, or development is against this Act or regulations made under this Act, the Executive Council shall issue a stop notice to any such person carrying out such an activity and, or development:
Provided that when the illegal activity and, or development is limited to part of the site, the Authority may in its discretion issue a partial stop notice requiring the activity and, or development to be stopped forthwith only in relation to that part of the activity and, or development to where the illegal development subsists and not in relation to the whole development:
Provided further that no such notice shall be issued for any development carried out before 1978:
Provided further that the Executive Council may issue a warning notice in writing requiring illegal activity and, or development to be stopped forthwith prior to proceeding with the issue of a stop notice, which has to be abided with immediately on notification, provided that only one warning notice may be issued for the same infringement.
(2) A copy of the notices mentioned in sub-article (1) may also be served on any representative, builder, contractor or workman on the site.
(3) The Executive Council shall, in the case of a stop notice issued under sub-article (1), also inform, by electronic means:
(a) the local council in whose locality the land mentioned in sub-article (1) is found;
(b) the perit responsible for the said works, if known, that a stop notice as aforesaid has been issued by the Executive Council:
Provided that the non-compliance with the provisions of this sub-article shall in no case invalidate any notice issued under sub-article (1).
(4) If it appears to the Executive Council that any activity and, or development of land has been carried out without the grant of permission required on that behalf under this Act, or that any conditions subject to which such permission was granted in respect of any activity and, or development have not been complied with, the Executive Council may, having regard to the provisions of development plans, planning policies and any other material consideration, serve on the owner of the land or on the occupier of the land or on the person responsible for the acts mentioned in the notice or any combination thereof as the Executive Council deems most expedient, an enforcement notice and sub-article (3) shall also here apply, requiring such steps as may be specified in the notice to be taken within such time as may also be so specified for restoring the land to its condition before the activity and, or development took place or for removing such development or for securing compliance with the conditions aforesaid, as the case may be, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the aforesaid any such notice may, for the purpose aforesaid, require the demolition or alteration of any buildings or works, the discontinuance of any use of land, or the carrying out on the land of any building or other operations:
Provided that where the Executive Chairperson believes that there is an imminent danger to the natural and built environment, an emergency enforcement notice may be served on the above indicated persons without the need of consulting the other members of the Executive Council:
Provided further that an appeal from an emergency enforcement notice or the submission of an application for the retention on land of any buildings, works or development or to sanction the continuance of any use of the land to which the emergency enforcement notice relates shall not stay the operation of the emergency enforcement notice.
(5) [Deleted]
(6) Any notice made under this article shall contain a detailed description of the infringements being alleged and where applicable, a site plan indicating the land which is the subject of such a notice shall be annexed thereto together with any additional information as deemed appropriate by the Executive Council to clearly identify the alleged infringements.
(7) A notice under this article may include a combination of a stop notice and enforcement notice and shall be known as a stop and enforcement notice. Moreover a notice given under any of the provisions of this article, other than the immediate request stopping or prohibiting any further work or development or requiring the cessation of use, shall take effect at the expiration of such period, being not less than fifteen days and not more than sixty days after service thereof, as may be specified therein.
(8) When an application for development permission has been submitted before the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-article (7) –
(a) for the retention on the land of any buildings, works or development to which the enforcement notice relates; or
(b) to sanction the continuance of any use of the land to which the enforcement notice relates,
the operation of the notice, in respect of any requirement other than a requirement stopping or prohibiting any further activity and, or development or requiring the cessation of a use, shall be suspended pending the final determination of the application. If the permission applied for is granted on that application and it comes into operation, the enforcement notice shall cease ipso jure to have effect.
(9) Any application to regularise an activity or a development or an appeal to the Tribunal from a refusal, may be dismissed forthwith if a requirement in the notice stopping or prohibiting further activity and, or development, or requiring the cessation of a use, has not been complied with and there is evidence to show that the notice has not been complied with during the processing of the application or during the Tribunal sittings, or if any penalty or other payment for which any person has become liable under this Act in respect of the relevant activity or development has not been paid.
(10) The Executive Council may exercise its powers under article 100(1) notwithstanding that a second or subsequent application intended to regularise the illegal activity or development may have been filed with the Planning Board concerning the same or part of the same activity or site, irrespective of whether the said application is filed by the same applicant or by another applicant.
(11) Without prejudice to article 100(4), any person who feels aggrieved by any notice served on him may appeal against it to the Tribunal in terms of the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal Act, in which case the effects of the notice, other than the request stopping or prohibiting any further activity and, or development or requiring the cessation of a use, shall be suspended pending the final determination of the appeal:
Provided that the notification of the enforcement notice shall be revoked completely or partially, as the circumstances require, in the case of a person who shows either that the alleged development is lawful under this Act, or that he had no control over the alleged illegal development and had taken reasonable steps to prevent such development but without success”.
Article 97 of the current Development Planning Act establishes a tightly structured enforcement procedure to halt unlawful development and secure compliance with planning controls. Where the Executive Council determines that an activity or development is taking place without the required permission or licence, in breach of conditions attached to a permission, or otherwise contrary to the Act or its subsidiary legislation, it must issue a stop notice to the person responsible. If the illegality is confined to part of a site, the Council may issue a partial stop notice covering only that portion. Presently, no notice may be issued for development undertaken before 1967, reflecting a legislative choice to avoid disturbing long-settled situations.
Before escalating to a stop notice, the Council may issue a single written warning requiring immediate cessation. Stop notices may be served on representatives, builders, contractors, or workmen on site and must be displayed prominently at a point of entry. In addition, the Council must notify the local council in whose area the land lies, the perit responsible for the works, and the site manager if known.
Where the Council finds that post-commencement development has been carried out without permission or in breach of conditions, it may serve an enforcement notice on the owner, occupier, or any responsible person. Such notices can compel restoration of the land to its prior state, removal or alteration of buildings or works, cessation of a use, or specified remedial operations. In urgent cases involving imminent danger to “the environment,” the Council may issue an emergency enforcement notice without prior consultation; such a notice is not suspended by an appeal or application for regularisation.
All stop and enforcement notices must be registered in the public index maintained under Article 57(2), using the same method as for conservation orders. They must describe the infringement in detail, attach a site plan where applicable, and contain sufficient particulars to identify the breach. A notice may combine stop and enforcement measures, taking effect between fifteen and sixty days from service unless it directs an immediate halt. If an application for permission covering the subject of the notice is filed before it takes effect, the operation of the notice—save for immediate prohibitions—is suspended pending determination and lapses if permission is granted. Applications and appeals may be summarily dismissed if the prohibitions have been ignored during proceedings or if penalties remain unpaid. Under sub-article (11), an appeal to the Tribunal suspends the effects of the notice (except stop requirements) until final determination.
Meanwhile, Bill No. 143 of 2025 preserves the enforcement machinery but recalibrates several key elements. The historical cut-off for immunity moves from 1967 to 1978, extending the category of works that cannot be targeted by new enforcement action. The obligation to notify the site manager is removed; instead, notices must be served electronically on the local council and the perit responsible, if known. This reflects a policy of procedural streamlining and digital efficiency, though it narrows the pool of formally notified on-site actors.
In sub-article (4), the transitional phrase “after the coming into force of this Act” is deleted to make clear the provision’s application to all post-1978 development. More significantly, “for the environment” becomes “for the natural and built environment,” widening the scope of emergency enforcement to include protection of architectural heritage, urban form, and other man-made environmental assets.
Sub-article (5), which currently requires stop and enforcement notices to be indexed under Article 57(2), is deleted, likely reducing administrative duplication but also potentially lessening public transparency unless an alternative publication mechanism is maintained.
In sub-article (11), the appeal provision is made expressly “without prejudice to article 100(4)” (the daily fine regime), clarifying that an appeal does not automatically halt the accrual of daily fines. Most significantly, a new proviso is inserted: the Planning Authority must revoke an enforcement notice, in whole or in part, if the addressee shows either that the alleged development is lawful or that they had no control over the illegal development and took reasonable steps to prevent it.
The quasi-strict liability approach underpinning the current law has been tested in two leading cases: Francis Cachia Caruana v Planning Authority and Victoria Tabone v Planning Authority.
In Cachia Caruana (Rik. Kost. 42/16/1, Constitutional Court, 26 October 2022), the applicant co-owned scheduled land on the outskirts of Rabat. He authorised only minor track repairs but denied knowledge or authorisation of later large-scale tipping and levelling works. The Planning Authority issued an enforcement notice against him under Articles 52 and 56. Third parties were prosecuted but acquitted; no criminal charges were brought against him. He sought constitutional redress, arguing that holding him liable for acts committed by others violated his fair trial rights under Article 39 of the Constitution and Articles 6 and 7 of the ECHR, and his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1. He claimed he neither committed nor authorised the works, lacked control over them once commenced, and that enforcement against him was disproportionate. The Constitutional Court dismissed his claim. It held that the enforcement regime is site-focused: the Authority may proceed against the owner or occupier it deems appropriate, regardless of personal fault, leaving the notified party to seek civil recourse against the actual wrongdoer. His initial consent to limited works and failure to maintain control justified enforcement. The Court acknowledged the apparent harshness but maintained that any mitigation was a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary.
In Victoria Tabone (App. 65/2018, Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), 20 February 2019), the appellant was served with an enforcement notice for unauthorised photovoltaic panels installed on a scheduled ODZ building. She argued she had not carried out the works, was not in possession of the property, and could not physically comply with the notice. The Authority nonetheless proceeded against her as the registered owner.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the notice, reiterating that liability attaches to the site, not to personal wrongdoing. The Authority may serve an enforcement notice on the owner or occupier as it sees fit, and impossibility of compliance due to lack of possession is no defence. Responsibility disputes are for separate civil proceedings.
Both cases exemplify the current system’s rigidity: absence of involvement or control does not shield an owner from liability. The new proviso to Article 97(11) directly responds to this jurisprudence. It creates a statutory defence allowing revocation of a notice where the recipient proves either that the alleged development is lawful or that they had no control and took reasonable steps to prevent it.
Had this been in force:
- In Cachia Caruana, proof that the large-scale tipping was unauthorised and that preventive measures were taken (restricting consent, monitoring works, alerting authorities) would have compelled revocation, removing the need for constitutional litigation.
- In Tabone, proof of lack of possession, absence of control, and reasonable preventive action could have led to administrative revocation, avoiding the constraints of strict site-based liability on appeal.
Clearly, the ratio behind Bill 143 is to temper absolute site-based liability by introducing fault-sensitive relief in clearly defined circumstances, shifting the determination of innocence from the courts to the Authority at the enforcement stage.
