Moviment Graffiti et al vs Planning Authority — Comino Hotel Development

Environmental groups challenge a planning permit for a major hotel and bungalow redevelopment on the ecologically protected island of Comino.

Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) · Honourable Judge Mark Simiana, LL.D · 4 May 2026

A coalition of environmental and heritage organisations — including Moviment Graffiti, BirdLife Malta, Nature Trust, Din l-Art Ħelwa, and several individuals — appealed a decision by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) which, on 11 November 2025, had upheld a planning permit granted by the Planning Authority to HV Hospitality Ltd for the redevelopment of the Comino Hotel and associated bungalows. The permit in question, PA/04777/20, authorised the demolition of the existing hotel at San Niklaw Bay and bungalows at Santa Marija Bay, and their replacement with a 140-bed Class 3B hotel, 16 serviced bungalows, a spa, bars, restaurants, swimming pools, and upgraded berthing facilities. The permit was originally granted on 11 June 2025. The appellants contested this before the EPRT, which dismissed their appeal, prompting the further appeal now before the Court of Appeal. The appellants argued that the development violated several policies of the Gozo and Comino Local Plan, most notably GZ-COMI-1, GZ-COMI-2, and GZ-GHJN-8, which afford Comino elevated protection as a Natura 2000 site and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). They contended that the approved development extended over approximately 9,900 square metres of land outside the zone allocated for tourist facilities, involved significant excavation including areas of garrigue, and resulted in a substantial increase in gross floor area of around 4,000 square metres over the existing footprint. The Tribunal had found that the Local Plan, while establishing a general presumption against development, also explicitly recognised the existing hotel and tourism complex as a 'main site-specific issue' and encouraged their rehabilitation and redevelopment in a manner compatible with the surrounding context. The Tribunal considered Policy GZ-GHJN-8 as the most directly applicable provision and read the relevant policies holistically, concluding that the permit was consistent with the Local Plan's framework. The Court of Appeal was now tasked with reviewing whether this reasoning was legally sound.

The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal by Moviment Graffiti et al., quashed the Tribunal's decision of 11 November 2025, and remitted the case back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the Court's legal findings on the distinction between legal and illegal development.

• In Maltese planning law, Local Plan policies must be read holistically and in context — a general presumption against development does not automatically override site-specific policies that explicitly contemplate and encourage the upgrading of existing facilities.
• The Gozo and Comino Local Plan affords Comino the highest level of protection, equating it with scheduled property, but this protection is not absolute where the Local Plan itself identifies existing developments and encourages their compatible rehabilitation.
• Policy GZ-GHJN-8 illustrates how Maltese planning policy can simultaneously impose a presumption against intensification of development while permitting redevelopment of existing tourism facilities, provided it is compatible with ecological sensitivity.
• Maps included in Local Plans marked 'indicative only — not to be used for measurement or direct interpretation' cannot be used as precise measurement tools to establish planning breaches, as confirmed by the Tribunal's approach to Map 14.2_A1.
• Environmental impact assessments (EIA) and appropriate assessments (AA) form a critical part of the planning process for developments on Natura 2000 sites in Malta, and their conclusions carry significant weight before the EPRT and appellate courts.

Development Planning Act (Chapter 552, Laws of Malta); Gozo and Comino Local Plan — Policies GZ-COMI-1, GZ-COMI-2, GZ-GHJN-8; Structure Plan Policies RCO 11 and RCO 12; Habitats Directive (Natura 2000/SAC framework)