[WATCH] Johann Buttigieg: ‘Issuing permits helps keep property prices in check’

Johann Buttigieg’s reappointment as Planning Authority CEO was met with enthusiasm from developers but anger and derision from environmentalists. 

The latter argue he is too close to the developers' lobby but true to his character, the thick-skinned Buttigieg is not offended by the sharp criticism. He calmly notes that “it’s their perception, not mine”. He adds that in the private sector, he represented both developers and objectors, including local councils. 

Though Michael Stivala, a major developer who also heads the Malta Development Association, was a main client for a time, Buttigieg insists he wasn’t tied exclusively to any developer. 

Unfazed by concerns over revolving doors, Buttigieg points to his two-year stint at the Malta Tourism Authority as a buffer between his public and private roles in the planning sector. 

He stresses that revolving door rules apply when leaving public service, not before. Upon completing his term, he plans to follow the law by taking a year away from planning – either in another government position or working in a different private sector – before considering private consultancy in planning again. 

On conflicts of interest, particularly regarding Stivala’s projects, he responds: “If I had advised on a project, I’d declare a conflict and step back.” He adds that he has already recused himself from board meetings on three or four occasions for this reason. 

But crucially, Buttigieg sees no conflict of interest with regards to future projects presented by Stivala on which he did not give advise during his stint in the private sector. 

Now, keen on projecting himself as a doer and a fixer, he is focused on tackling the backlog of applications and implementing a key government commitment – suspending work on approved permits that are under appeal. 

The following is an excerpt of the interview. 

Watch the full interview on maltatoday.com.mt, Facebook and Spotify. 

What was the brief given to you upon reappointment? 

To identify what isn’t working and fix it. Pending applications have soared past 6,400, far exceeding the 3,700 legal threshold. My first goal is to reduce this to 3,000 by next year. I also want to ensure the Prime Minister’s proposed appeals reform is enacted within three months. 

How will this reform work out? 

When a third party appeals a permit, the permit will be suspended. The Environment and Planning Review Tribunal will have four months to decide – either revoking or confirming it. If appealed in court, the permit remains suspended for another three months. This gives developers peace of mind that their permit is water tight while ensuring fairness for NGOs appealing permits. 

The PA is having to deal with an absurd situation like massive illegal ODZ pools in Qala and Sannat, simply because works covered by a contested permit continued during the appeals process only to be revoked by the law courts. The developers have now applied to sanction these illegalities. What’s your take on this? 

I won’t comment on individual cases, but I disagree that such developments were carried out illegally. They were built under permits later revoked by the courts. In these cases, we must find solutions based on court rulings – if it was a procedural issue, we can correct it; if it was policy-related, we need to review the policies. 

You are paid €140,000…. much more than the minister responsible for the sector. How do you justify this? 

My salary is in line with other CEOs at the same level and with comparable responsibilities. The salary disparity in pay with other officials has actually decreased compared to past CEOs. My wage reflects my hours and responsibility – this is one of the country’s most important institutions... Employees can confirm that I start at 8am and rarely leave before 8pm. 

Does it make sense to have ad-hoc local plan changes for projects like Villa Rosa as proposed in a public consultation commenced last year instead of a masterplan for Paceville in its entirety? 

The Paceville masterplan (proposed in 2016) was a lost opportunity. For the first time, foreign planners had carte blanche to redesign the area and allocate open spaces logically. Unfortunately, public consultation sparked a negative reaction. We need better consultation, where the first draft isn’t seen as a final decision but as something that can be improved. 

So, should we return back to formulating a masterplan instead of site-specific changes? 

Masterplans have advantages, but the Villa Rosa revision began before my appointment. Since the government set policy objectives, the PA must respect them. 

A new rural policy aimed at closing loopholes in a previous policy approved in 2014 which included controversial clauses allowing country-side ruins to become villas was issued for public consultation in 2020 but is still pending. Is this not another case of delayed action when goalposts are moved against development? 

When policies were issued on my watch, they didn’t take five years to approve. I need to review why this is delayed. While I want some changes, many aspects of the rural policy should remain – we focus too much on negatives and forget the positives. 

In 2013, the PA began a reform of the local plans approved in 2006. Why was it stopped? 

There were 8,000 submissions during public consultation – over 6,000 sought to include ODZ land in development zones. That was not the aim. 

But local plans from 2006 were drafted in the 1990s in a very different social and economic context. Isn’t an update necessary? 

Yes, after 20 years, we need to take stock. But first, we must update the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED) to set land-use priorities. Meanwhile, we will conduct targeted and surgical local plan revisions. These even include a revision of Urban Conservation Areas following a request made by the Pietà local council... After the SPED update, we need to plan for the next  20-years. 

In the past politicians argued that reducing development rights in a local plan could lead to compensation claims by developers. Do you agree? 

This is a legal matter. Personally, I don’t think so. Courts have never awarded compensation to owners when heritage buildings are scheduled, as national heritage protection outweighs private development rights… But we should avoid past mistakes, like in 1989, when permits were revoked on land which was excluded from the development zones due to unpaid planning dues, leaving people who invested their life savings, stranded. However, where no permits exist, it’s a different issue. But I’d like political consensus on SPED changes to guide development until 2040. 

The PA has approved 91,000 new dwellings in the past decade, including 21,000 on previously undeveloped land in the development zone, with the record years coinciding with your first term in office. How sustainable is this? 

Had we not issued these permits, Malta would face the same housing crises as other European countries. This is a supply-and-demand issue – continuing to issue permits helps keep property prices in check. Stopping them would drive prices up. 

Yet, despite record permits, Malta still faces an affordability crisis. 

Affordability is a concern, and I intend to address it. One factor is apartment size – Malta’s minimum for a one-bedroom flat is 55sq.m, while in Italy it’s 37sq.m, in Paris 18sq.m, and in London 21sq.m. We also need to update the 20% cap on one-bedroom apartments per block, as it doesn’t reflect today’s social realities. By year’s end, we will introduce a new Development Control Design Policy to address this. 

Can you mention a failure in your first term which you intend fixing? 

One major failure has been building design – because architects often disregard context. I’m in talks with the Kamra tal-Periti to set up a Design Review Panel, ensuring senior and experienced architects vet designs before they reach the board.