In terms of Article 22(4) of the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman, Mr. Anthony C. Mifsud, and the Commissioner for Environment and Planning, Perit Alan Saliba, have sent to the House of Representatives the Final Opinion concerning a complaint regarding the rejection of representations by the Planning Authority following the filing of fresh plans at the request of the Planning Board or the Planning Commission.

Case Summary

On 3 January 2022, this Office received a complaint that major fresh plans cannot be objected to in writing in front of the Planning Authority, adding that one cannot make detailed researched objections in a board meeting orally.

As the complainant referred to a pending case on 7 January 2022, the complainant was informed that the specific case would not be investigated in line with Article 13(3) of the Ombudsman Act.  However, the Commissioner decided to proceed with the investigation concerning problems of general interest contained in the complaint that would affect various applications processed by the Planning Authority.

The Commissioner for Environment and Planning opened an investigation regarding representations following fresh plans submitted at the request of the Planning Board.  This Office highlighted that following a previous investigation by this Office, the Planning Directorate is no longer issuing a late representation reply after registered representees submit new representations following fresh plans that are submitted before the first Planning Board hearing, but it is issuing a late representation reply for representations against fresh plans that are submitted following the Planning Board hearing, and to this effect the representees are being requested to make their submissions only orally during the hearing.

Following representations from the Planning Authority, the Commissioner for Environment and Planning concluded that the rejection of representations in writing following the filing of fresh plans at the request of the Planning Board or the Planning Commission is not found to be justified. Therefore, the Commissioner recommended that:

1. When the Planning Board or Planning Commission authorises fresh submissions by the applicant, it also establishes a reasonable period within which the registered interested parties may file representations in writing following these fresh submissions.
2. The Planning Authority accepts representations by the registered interested parties that are filed in writing within the period stipulated by the Board or Commission.
3. For pending applications, where the applicant has already been invited to revise the proposal, the Planning Authority shall accept representations that are submitted at least fifteen days before the next Board or Commission hearing.

Outcome

The Planning Authority informed the Commissioner that following a discussion in the Executive Council, his recommendations wouldn’t be implemented because the regulation does not provide for written submissions. Therefore, the Case was referred to the Prime Minister in September 2022, and since no action has been taken, the Ombudsman and the Commissioner sent the report to the attention of the House of Representatives.

Documents:

04.03.22 – Final Opinion 

30.08.22 – Reaction from the Planning Authority 

15.09.2022 – Letter to the Prime Minister

20.10.2022 – Letter to the Speaker of the House