Infrastructure Malta has built more than roads but also a reputation for having a dubious relationship with the rules. Jessica Arena looks at the evidence.

When Infrastructure Malta swooped down recently on a quiet residential road in Żebbuġ and started to widen it, the action raised the ire of residents, as well as environmentalists, who held that  the works breached all road policies. 

This reaction was hardly a first for the government agency that oversees construction projects. 

Since its founding in the summer of 2018, IM has prided itself on getting things done. But the way it steamrolls ahead with some of its projects has drawn heavy criticism, particularly on environmental grounds.

In seemingly stubborn disregard for rules, it has in some instances only applied for planning permission after works have already begun.

A case in point was the widening of Tal-Balal road, one of the agency’s very first projects.

When Transport Minister Ian Borg announced the plans, there were no pending applications for such roadworks at the Planning Authority.

After the works started, IM said it was in the process of seeking planning permission and that only interventions “within the existing footprint” had been carried out.

It justified its decision to start works without a permit by saying the project was urgent, part of a country-wide infrastructural programme to alleviate traffic congestion in major thoroughfares.

The project was completed in July 2019, some eight months after its original target date.

Other examples of playing loose with the rules followed.

Concrete on country roads

In November 2019, the Żebbuġ local council called on IM to stop works on the widening of a country road in Wied Qirda, which it said was being asphalted to the detriment of the environment and without a permit.

Later that month, agency workers ignored a stop and compliance order issued by the Environmental Resources Agency and carried on with works in the valley.

IM said it was carrying out repair works to render the road safe to the public following accidental and storm damage which did not necessitate a development permit from the Planning Authority.

A permit for works in the protected valley was only granted in July of 2020 – eight months after works had already begun.

The agency faced further compliance orders from the Environment and Resources Authority in March and April of 2019, when it started to carry out works to widen a number of country roads in a Rabat valley, used primarily by farmers.

ERA ordered a halt to the works because they were “resulting in biodiversity destruction”.

IM argued that the roads in question were not being widened beyond their original footprint but ERA confirmed that the agency had encroached on adjacent land and that concrete laid beyond the original footprint must be removed.

The agency eventually complied, narrowing the roads to their original dimensions and laying down soil on the perimeter.

Earlier this month, IM’s paving over a country lane in Dwejra with cement was halted after the intervention of the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage. 

NGO Friends of the Victoria Lines Trail said the road was not simply a country lane but a historical military path built to serve the Dwejra Lines, and was therefore subject to special protection.

IM said the works were being done under permits for such works within the existing footprint, saying the dirt track had a concrete surface in the past which had fallen into disrepair.

Central Link controversies

In November 2020, mayors from three local councils – Swieqi, Attard and St Paul’s Bay – complained of a lack of communication from the agency, claiming their councils were often in the dark about when works were going to be scheduled.

IM denied the claim, saying it consulted all stakeholders, obtained roadworks permits from Transport Malta before beginning any project, and notified councils.

The controversial Central Link project, however, provided more evidence that the agency was not quite the rule-abiding paragon it made itself out to be.

While it had permits in hand when breaking ground, an appeal by NGOs challenging the decision to grant it planning permission had not yet been decided when works began. Hundreds of old trees and valuable farmland were at stake.

The appeal was ultimately thrown out but the court expressed disappointment that works had begun before it reached a decision, leaving objectors little recourse. 

IM was meant to have informed ERA of the commencement of works

There was more controversy with Central Link. Shortly after works began, ERA was forced to temporarily stop them due to breach of permit conditions, as an arboricultural expert was not on-site to supervise the works as stipulated.

Under those conditions, IM was meant to have informed ERA of the commencement of works up to a week beforehand and nominate a tree expert to oversee transplanting.

In July of 2020, a group of Attard residents found themselves unexpectedly locked in their homes when IM workers erected a gate in Ferdinand Inglott Street, blocking vehicular access due to ongoing works related to Central Link.

Residents were incensed at having been unable to access their property. In one instance, gate locks had to be forcibly cut open to allow access during an emergency.

IM said the gate had been erected and locked by the contractors after residents refused to respect the road closure and continued to drive into the street while it was being dug up.

Earlier this month, ERA put a stop to works being out on a rural road in Dingli over a breach of environmental laws. Construction material was dropped on natural vegetation and on a protected Special Area of Conservation.

IM countered that it had been asked by the Dingli local council and the Water Services Corporation to lay a new underground waterpipe.

Flyovers galore

Last December, IM plans to expand the Mrieħel bypass were exposed. The agency wants to add a flyover that would allow westbound traffic to enter the industrial zone without having to cross eastbound lanes of the bypass.

Farmers found notifications of the upgrading works, which envisages the uptake of some 20 tumoli of agricultural land outside the development zone and the destruction of a reservoir.

A €1 million pedestrian footbridge built above the bypass only two years ago will also have to go if permits are obtained.

IM said its plans are only at their initial states, arguing about the need to prevent accidents in a blackspot and saying that additional land is needed to add cycling and pedestrian lanes along the bypass.

Later in December, the roads agency earned itself a rebuke from several NGOs, as well as the head of the Chamber of Architects, Andre Pizzuto, for its plans to replace the traffic light system in Msida with flyovers, dubbed the Msida Creek project.

A call for tenders has attracted seven bidders for the project but the planning application has yet to be fully processed – it is currently listed as being in the screening stage on the Planning Authority’s website.

Pizzuto has said the plans make no sense from an urban planning perspective and should instead aim to divert traffic away from Msida rather than build flyovers through it.

IM has recently had to defend itself again after it emerged that it had started construction works on a pedestrian footbridge in Marsa without a permit.

The agency argued that pedestrians were having to cross several lanes of traffic and climb over steel crash barriers. The decision was taken to forge ahead without planning permission in order to remove the danger, it said.

Stand-off in Dingli

In October of 2020, Dingli farmers awoke to discover heavy machinery on their doorsteps, with IM about to start excavation works to connect two narrow back streets though their arable land.

Following a tense three-hour stand-off with activists, who blocked the machinery, the agency was forced to retreat, having only managed to uproot a couple of carob trees.

The agency said it did not acquire PA approval because the schemed road had been approved some 14 years earlier and development permits were not required for the formation of new roads within development zones already included in the PA’s local plans.

Activists insisted a permit was indeed required, as more than half of the planned road would run through an ODZ area. 

Last October, farmers in Burmarrad were faced with a similar problem. Road works planned in the vicinity of their fields would tear through a 500-year-old hand-dug reservoir, which the farmers depended on for their water supply.

Landowners had not been previously notified of works and it was only after farmers went to the media that the agency applied for planning permissions.

Infrastructure Malta said it reached out in good faith before the period of public consultation to address any issues.

Paying the price

Infrastructure Malta has been fined on two occasions, €42,454 in August of 2018 for road works carried out without a permit on Tal-Balal road, and a further €20,107 in February of 2019 for work carried out in a Luqa road-widening project without a permit.

It is the taxpayer who ends up footing the bill for irregularities.

When asked whether the agency had a policy to bypass planning permission where possible, a spokesperson for IM said the suggestion was “obviously untrue and unfounded”.

In the hundreds of projects the agency carries out, only a few instances led to controversy, the spokesperson added.

“There are instances where Infrastructure Malta is permitted by law to carry out infrastructural works without necessitating the development planning permits required for other works. The agency is not required to request planning development permits to build schemed roads and to develop new infrastructure within existing road spaces.

“It is also obliged by law to immediately intervene, without the need to seek development permits, in cases where existing infrastructure is causing public safety risks. This legal obligation is also confirmed through case law,” the spokesperson said.

We believe that in certain instances, even if the development is permitted by law, the execution of works may be more sensitive

Infrastructure Malta “is in constant talks with local councils, residents, non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders, before and during the implementation of many different projects.

“It reaches out to individuals who may be impacted by upcoming projects even before the official public consultation phases of the Planning Authority’s development application process is launched. This openness to optimisation continues after permits are issued.”

The agency said it was constantly seeking to give the public an opportunity to be aware of detailed plans and to participate in its consultation processes.

Allegations about tendering processes being launched before related development planning were superfluous, the spokesperson added, as the projects were carried out only if the relevant permits were issued.

“However, by launching the two processes at the same time, if a project is approved, it can be implemented in less time, to the benefit of the new infrastructure’s users.”

PA inaction?

Architects who spoke to Times of Malta said that the Planning Authority’s enforcement unit was empowered to take action on any irregularities.

Enforcement officers are tasked with assessing the project and issuing an enforcement notice, giving the applicant the option of either removing the illegality or regularising themselves with a permit. Fines can also be issued for a breach of planning conditions.

A spokesperson for the Planning Authority said that while government agencies are exempt from seeking planning permission for work that falls within their competence, certain projects may benefit from better consultation between authorities.

“There have been instances when due to the nature of the works or their location, we have had to intervene and stop works because our interpretation of the law differs to that of any agency,” the spokesperson said.

“We believe that in certain instances, even if the development is permitted by law, the execution of works may be more sensitive and carried out following better consultation between authorities.”