Silence from government on Halland fiasco, PN calls for policy clarification

Following a few days of relative silence from Malta’s major political parties about the Halland hotel fiasco, the Nationalist Party responded to The Shift’s questions on the subject by calling on the government to “clarify and resolve” the ambiguity that arises from “conflicting policy interpretations”, but stopped short of explicitly stating whether buildings which are declared manifestly illegal by the court should be demolished.

Widely seen as a clear example of why the country’s planning regime is broken, questions about the latest twist in the long-running saga surrounding a proposed 10-storey hotel in Swieqi were sent to both major parties to determine their positions on the issue.

In line with its consistent policy of ignoring formal inquiries from The Shift, the government refused to answer questions about a problem of its own making.

The major parties’ refusal to address what happens when a structure is declared illegal by the courts stands in contrast to open calls from alternative parties, such as Momentum, for the lawful demolition of illegal structures.

In a lengthy response sent to The Shift, a spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition argued that the PN has already stated that when a permit is under appeal, as was the case in the Halland hotel saga, it should be suspended “for a defined and reasonable period” until the appeal is decided.

“The present situation did not arise in a vacuum. Over the past 13 years, the government has failed to implement a coherent, structural reform of the planning framework. Instead of resolving inconsistencies, it layered additional policies and guidelines that often conflict with one another, increasing ambiguity and reducing predictability,” the spokesperson said.

“This has fostered a culture of ‘build now and sanction later’, undermining both public trust and environmental governance,” he added.

In the response, the spokesperson also reiterated the Opposition’s calls to scrap the government’s proposed planning bills, which have recently stalled after widespread, sustained public pressure on Prime Minister Robert Abela and his Cabinet.

“The so-called planning reform that the government attempted to push through last summer, without any consultation, would have further weakened citizens’ rights, restricted judicial oversight, and concentrated excessive discretion in the hands of the Minister and the Planning Authority. Such an approach does not strengthen the rule of law; it dilutes it,” the spokesperson said.

While the Opposition did not explicitly comment on whether illegal buildings should be demolished, the party’s spokesperson did address another problem created by conflicting planning policies: buyers who bought apartments on plan and remained in limbo after a development permit was declared illegal by the court.

Once the permit is annulled, the spokesperson said, buyers effectively end up paying for part of a property with no enforceable right to use it, remaining financially exposed to loans and other commitments they would have signed up for before making their purchase.

Individuals affected in this manner, the party argues, must receive support from the government since they are “victims of a stagnated and inconsistently administered planning system”.

“Any remedial framework must therefore include concrete assistance mechanisms to mitigate the disproportionate burden placed on bona fide purchasers who acted in good faith within a flawed regulatory environment,” the spokesperson said.

While the spokesperson maintained that the party’s position on planning reform has always been consistent, it has yet to convince the electorate that it can reliably distance itself from the powerful construction lobby – especially when considering that the party’s precarious financial debt means its electoral war chest depends heavily on major donors.

Back when he was still a fresh-faced MP, Opposition Leader Alex Borg had clashed with environmental NGOs over his comments about Fort Chambray, a major development project which he had voted in favour of alongside fellow Opposition MP Stanley Zammit. Borg later appointed Zammit as Shadow Minister for Planning, Construction, and Lands.

Borg’s public comments were subsequently declared “misleading” by the Standards Commissioner. Though he was found guilty of breaching parliamentary ethics, Borg had refused to apologise for falsely claiming that the costs of Fort Chambray’s restorations would be borne by the developers when they were actually passed on to taxpayers.