Legal analysis of Legal Notice 285/16 (and subsequent amendments) : was it a step in the right direction?

Abstract

This dissertation analyses whether Legal Notice 285 of 2016 was a step in the right direction, especially in the light of the various developments undertaken by the Planning Authority throughout the years. The legislation under examination, addresses the concept of development, and goes on to lay the extent of the powers of the Planning Authority to issue permission to carry out or retain development, and the steps which must be taken for this to be achieved. For this purpose, reference is made to the Development Planning Act (hereinafter the ‘Act’) Chapter 552 of the Laws of Malta, specifically to Article 97(1), through which the enforcement procedures are explained. This dissertation furthers the study by analysing traditional sanctioning procedures. Special attention is given to Category B Concessions (hereinafter ‘CTBs’), their aims and what led to their introduction. This was followed by the promulgation of Legal Notice 285/16 ‘the Regularisation of Existing Development Regulations, 2016’ which was introduced on 22nd August 2016, and which originally had a three-year validity to allow for the regularisation of the illegalities in existence within the Development Zone Boundaries prior to such Legal Notice. However, due to its positive results, its validity has been further extended by another year. This dissertation, also addresses the illegal development which had been carried out prior to such Legal Notice. It consequently delves into development sanctioning procedures and CTBs, explaining the limitations of each. Moreover, it compares the Maltese situation to that in the UK, with special regard being given to the Outside Development Zone (hereinafter ‘ODZ’), which in the UK is referred to as the ‘green belt’. Lastly, after delving into and analysing Legal Notice 285/16, the author looks at such legal notice from another perspective, and consequently recommends that this Legal Notice be amended in order to safeguard the signatory architect or warranted engineer, who ultimately would be just signing the necessary papers for the regularisation of the actual situation without having the possibility to know of any hidden defects, especially if the concerned property has been built many years prior to the regularisation application.