Workshop use older than planning control is not development
The Environment and Planning Review Tribunal held on 23 July 2026 that a Valletta joinery in use since the 1950s is not development, and that an NGO that never objected cannot appeal. It matters to objectors and to owners of long-standing uses.
On 23 July 2026, the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal held that a joinery workshop in Valletta, in continuous use since before a permit was needed, falls outside the definition of development in article 70 of the Development Planning Act.
It also held that an environmental NGO that never objected to the application before the Planning Authority could not appeal. The tribunal upheld the appeal by D.V. only in part, and ordered a corrected engineer's report before the permit is issued again.
The facts
The Planning Authority received an application to sanction the change of use of a pre-1967 workshop in Valletta into an artisan joinery, a Class 5A use. The case officer recommended refusal, citing noise, emissions, obstruction of the public passage and the absence of a trading licence. The Planning Commission approved the permit, with a condition that there be no spray painting on site.
D.V., a neighbour, and the NGO Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar appealed. They argued that the permit breached policies of the Grand Harbour Local Plan, objectives of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development, the Development Planning (Use Classes) Order (S.L. 552.15) and the Cultural Heritage Act. The Authority and the permit holder defended it, citing affidavits on the history of the use and declarations of no objection by 60 residents.
What the court held
The tribunal, composed of Joseph Borg, Alicia Borg and David Mifsud Parker, first dealt with standing. The appellants accepted that Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar had never objected, but argued that an environmental NGO has standing at any stage.
The tribunal found it uncontested that the NGO had not registered its interest under article 71 of the Development Planning Act (Chapter 552 of the Laws of Malta). It held that the NGO could not appeal, and that the appeal stayed valid in the name of D.V. alone.
On the merits, the tribunal started from article 70. Under article 70(1), no development may be carried out without a development permit, and article 70(2) counts a substantial change of use as development. Article 70(2)(e) excludes "użu li ilu jseħħ kontinwament minn żmien fejn dak l-użu ma kienx meqjus illegali u ma kienx jeħtieġ permess" (a use that has been carried on continuously since a time when that use was not considered illegal and did not require a permit).
The file held six affidavits signed by nine people, and at least five of them swore to joinery use on the site before 1967. The appellant brought no evidence to contradict them. The tribunal found that the use had existed continuously since the 1950s, before it needed a permit, so it is not development and needs no development permit.
It held that the local plan policies and the strategic plan objectives apply to new development or changes of use that need a permit, and that the Cultural Heritage Act (Chapter 445) lies outside its competence.
An established use, the tribunal added, does not remove the need to protect residential amenity. The Use Classes Order allows a Class 5A use in a residential area only if, in the Authority's view, it causes no harm to the area through noise, vibration, smells or similar effects, creates no disproportionate traffic or parking and brings no large increase in staff. The workshop has about 55 square metres of floorspace, and the engineer's report excludes heavy machinery.
But the report placed the site in an industrial area, away from homes, when it lies in a residential area. The tribunal ordered the permit holder to file a corrected report with the necessary mitigation measures within 30 days, and the Authority to issue the permit within 30 days after that. Complaints about storage in other buildings, wood drying in the street and van parking were, it held, matters for enforcement outside the appeal.
Why it matters
An owner who relies on a use older than planning control should gather sworn evidence of continuous use from that period. Objectors, including NGOs, must register their interest with the Planning Authority under article 71 if they want to appeal later. A technical report that misdescribes the site can be sent back for correction, even where the use itself survives the appeal.
Where it sits
Planning control starts from the rule in article 70 that development needs a permit, subject to listed exclusions, one of which is a use older than the need for a permit. Standing to appeal follows the objection procedure: the Authority pointed to article 71(6) of the Development Planning Act, read with article 11(1)(e) of the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal Act (Chapter 551).
The appellants relied on the Court of Appeal's judgment in The Ramblers Association of Malta vs L-Awtorità ta' Malta dwar l-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar (27 May 2016). The tribunal held that it was not relevant to this case. It named no other authority and decided on the articles, the Use Classes Order and the evidence in the file.
Source
Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, D.V., PAB/00054/26, 23 July 2026.