A recent Court of Appeal decision has rekindled debate around a deceptively simple question in planning law: is a regularisation permit truly a development permit?
In Ivan Vella v Planning Authority (Court of Appeal [Inferior Jurisdiction], 28 May 2025), the Court held that a regularisation under L.N. 285 of 2016 does not amount to a true planning commitment. It described the permit as merely tolerating an illegality, rather than sanctioning it. On that basis, it dismissed the argument that a regularised washroom could serve as a legitimate basis for conversion into a penthouse.
In this recent short publication entitled ‘The Legal Status of Regularisation Permits‘, I explore the legal implications of this ruling, expressing my disagreement. Critically, the article points out that regulation 5(4) of L.N. 285/2016 expressly states:
“Any full development permission granted by the Authority in terms of these regulations shall be issued saving third party civil rights…”
This is the very language used in ordinary planning permits. And if a permit is granted only where the use conforms to current policies (regulation 4(5)), then that use is not simply tolerated—it is legally recognised.
To be clear, this does not mean that any future change in use is automatically permitted. All proposals must still be assessed against current policies. But to deny that regularisation confers any planning status at all risks eroding legal certainty and discouraging applicants from engaging with the system in good faith. Whether one agrees with the Court’s outcome or not, the judgment invites a timely reassessment of how regularisation operates within the legal framework.
