Why are Malta’s main parties silent as Halland stands?

Why have Malta’s two main political parties remained silent on the Halland development fiasco?

That question should dominate any discussion of the development of a 10-storey block in Swieqi, whose planning permit was revoked by the Court of Appeal on 13 February.

The silence from the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party is deafening, and it speaks volumes about the structural capture of Malta’s political system by major developers.

Neither party has followed through on the need for concrete reforms to prevent future cases where construction proceeds despite unresolved legal challenges.

The Court’s ruling was unambiguous. It found that the Planning Authority (PA) and the Environmental and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) acted arbitrarily in approving the Halland project.

Two conflicting planning frameworks applied to the site: One limiting development to two-storey detached or semi-detached dwellings, the other requiring retention of the existing building height.

Instead of resolving the conflict in accordance with the law, authorities selected the interpretation that maximised developer benefit, thereby disregarding statutory requirements. The building stands as a concrete testament to regulatory failure.

Halland Developments Company Ltd, the project owner, is a subsidiary of Spinola Development Company Ltd, itself part of the Tumas Group. The group is owned by the Fenech family, chaired by Raymond Fenech, and its former CEO was Yorgen Fenech, who is accused of the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.

The Group controls a sprawling portfolio in real estate, hospitality, and gaming. Halland Developments acquired the site in a multi-million-euro intra-group transfer, consolidating control over a prime valley-side location overlooking Wied Għomor.

That such a powerful conglomerate was behind the development may explain why regulatory authorities, despite repeated objections from residents and NGOs, greenlit a project that clearly contravened policy.

Residents and the Swieqi Local Council have consistently raised alarms. They warned that the project’s density, height, and bulk would overwhelm the area, threatening the protected valley and reducing public amenity space.

“This is obscene,” a council member told the media, emphasising that the Halland project dwarfs all surrounding buildings and stands in violation of long-established planning guidelines.

Yet these objections were brushed aside. Reports revealed communications between developers and former PA executives, including informal meetings to discuss the project’s design – exchanges that, while part of the process, highlight the disproportionate influence of well-connected developers over supposedly impartial authorities.

And here is the heart of the scandal: Neither of Malta’s two dominant political parties has publicly confronted this case. No minister has demanded enforcement of the court’s revocation.

Why? Because developers, including the Tumas Group, are major financial contributors to both parties. Malta’s political system relies heavily on private donations, and the construction sector is a particularly reliable source of funding, logistical support, and patronage.

This creates a political incentive to defer to economic interests, even when these interests are at odds with law and public good. Halland is therefore not merely a planning dispute; it is a symptom of a bipartisan tolerance of developer dominance.

Despite repeated promises from successive governments, including statements acknowledging the absurdity of allowing construction to proceed while appeals remain unresolved, meaningful reform has not materialised.

Halland is not the only project that flies in the face of failed promises. Developer Joseph Portelli has previously faced significant legal and regulatory challenges concerning planning permits that were later annulled by the courts.

In 2023, Malta’s Court of Appeal revoked multiple development permits granted to Portelli in sensitive zones, including projects in Mellieħa and Qala. The court ruled that the permits had been approved contrary to established planning policies, particularly those governing development outside designated building zones (ODZ). Yet, the developments stand, later sanctioned by the PA in defiance of the court’s decision.

Environmental NGOs have repeatedly pointed out that legality is subordinate to power; developers are incentivised to “build first, litigate later,” knowing that the worst-case scenario is a negotiated regularisation rather than strict enforcement.

The PA’s selective application of policy and the government’s legislative inaction ensure that this perverse incentive remains alive.

The Halland case is emblematic of a broader malaise. It illustrates how Malta’s planning system privileges economic expediency over legal compliance, how regulatory bodies bend under pressure from politically connected conglomerates, and how political parties sustain this cycle through silence and dependence on developer patronage.