[ANALYSIS] Dingli impasse: why new roads should always require permits

Infrastructure Malta did not require a permit to carry out roadworks in the vicinity of the scheduled Santa Duminka medieval chapel, which passed right through 300-year old carob trees.

This is because a legal notice dating back to 2008, exempts state bodies from seeking permits for the development of schemed roads, or rather... lines drawn on maps; in this case dating back to 1965 which were carried over in the local plan published in 2006.

But while in some cases these works do follow the lines set out in plans (as in a similar case in Żabbar), in the Dingli case the map drawn on the local plan did not cross over the development zone boundary.

It was only later in the absence of any public consultation, that the Planning Authority gave its “interpretation” by coming up with a new alignment protruding into the ODZ (outside development zone) boundary to ensure an 8-metre width for the new road, which is the minimum width required by law.

This suggests that as proposed in the local plan, the new road was not even feasible. And this may well be the reason why plans remained on paper and were never implemented.

By redrawing the lines again, the PA was duly obliged to re-consult the public – but it did not. In this case the PA simply implemented what had been already decided by Infrastructure Malta.

But even if one were to give the PA allowance in deviating from its own local plans for practical considerations, the invocation of a legal notice which exempts schemed roads from the planning process raises a number of questions.

When old line drawings prevail

Schemed roads were a minor detail included in bulk local plans dealing with a variety of issues

One consideration to be made is that many schemed roads were simply carried over in the local plans from plans dating back to the 1960s, at a time when environmental awareness was at its infancy and when no public consultation took place.

Moreover these schemed roads were a minor detail included in bulky local plans dealing with a vast variety of issues, which were approved after one single round of public consultation. The office of the Ombudsman had found this process defective. Therefore does it make sense to commence works on roads whose inclusion in local plan was more or less a formality?

The reality is that residents are now waking up to unannounced roadworks only to be told to “shut up” because the lines had already been drawn before they had reached adulthood... and in some cases even before they were born.

An experienced planner involved in the local plan process had this to say when asked on the legality of the road works in Dingli: “If it is a schemed road, then the laying out of a road is permitted development, but this is subject to various provisos such as that the schemed extent of the road is not exceeded.”

But as for the spirit of planning, “if there were people with a shred of decency they would subject the development to an application process, given that it is undisturbed land and still in use for agriculture…. There are various issues involved and those issues can only be assessed and decided upon through a proper application process.”

One law for the Gods...

Common citizens in Malta still have to go through the formalities of the planning process for works carried out in their own home. Yet large-scale projects protruding into the ODZ are being exempted from such requirements.

These requirements include the fixing of signs announcing the proposed works, the publication of plans showing the full extent of works, the request of comments from environmental and heritage authorities and public consultation. In contrast, IM commenced the works before even concluding the expropriation of private land in the area and without even publishing a plan showing the full extent of road works.

The setting of a medieval chapel

According to a planning circular issued last year, if a development is proposed in the vicinity of a scheduled building like the Santa Duminka chapel, the developer will even have to submit photomontages and other studies to assess the impact on the setting of the monument.

But no such requirements are needed for roadworks next to the medieval chapel in Dingli.  In this case the chapel was only scheduled in October 2020 following the first protests by Moviment Graffitti – eight full years after the request for scheduling was made by the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage.

Moreover the scheduling failed to identify a buffer zone around the chapel and to protect the trees, which form part of the setting of the monument. And since no planning application was submitted, the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage never had a chance to express its views on the proposed roadworks.

ERA becoming Ian Borg’s lapdog?

The environment authority has the power to issue a tree protection order but in the Dingli case it endorsed IM's destruction of trees

In the case of the scheme road buildling, the only permit required was a nature permit for the uprooting of centenarian trees, duly issued by the Environment and Resources Authority.

But here one has to take note of the testimony given in an appeals case presented by Moviment Graffitti, by Alfred Baldacchino, a former assistant director of ERA’s precursor, the Environment Directorate in the Planning Authority; an expert who distinguished himself as an outspoken critic of former planning Minister George Pullicino. “If ERA was worth its mettle, and could understand the ecological, economic, social, aesthetically and hydrological value of these carob trees it has endorsed for destruction, it would have immediately issued a Tree Protection Order, and possibly declared a Tree Protection Area where they grow. Instead it issued a permit for their destruction,” Baldachino said.

For the law perfectly entitles ERA to protect ‘trees or woodland communities of scientific, ecological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, arboricultural, silvicultural, agricultural, educational or landscape interest’ by issuing a tree protection order.

This raises the question on why ERA simply rubber-stamped IM’s plans instead of using its powers to protect trees which apart from their scientific value, undeniably have a historical and landscape interest in view of their location next to a medieval chapel.

And this raises another important question. Is the balance of forces now skewed in favour of infrastructural works? One may well suspect this was all part of the plan when Ian Borg was appointed by Joseph Muscat as his all-powerful planning and infrastructure minister. It was no surprise when roadworks in San Gwann were commenced in the absence of any planning permit immediately after his appointment.

Many hoped the situation would have improved after Aaron Farrugia’s appointment as Planning and Environment Minister. But judging from ERA’s complicity in the uprooting of trees in Dingli, it seems this ministry is still subjugated to the Infrastructure Ministry and is unable or unwilling to take steps to rein in the road building frenzy.

Back to the future

Infrastructural works remain crucial but public consultation on roads that have long been schemed should become the norm to reflect modern-day realities and needs

It would be a mistake to ignore how much Malta has changed since 2008 when the legal notice exempting road projects by state bodies from seeking planning permits was introduced.

Not only have people become more aware of the importance of the environment in their life but they are also more vigilant. Talking to residents in the close-knit Dingli village is instructive: too many of them are convinced that the roadworks serve one purpose – that of opening up the area for more building development.

That said, one has to recognise that infrastructural works are crucial in improving connectivity in the island and that most decisions in this sector are bound to be a double-edged sword, sometimes improving residents’ quality of life in one area at the cost of the environment in another. So neither should one assume that any road planned by IM is wrong. It is the procedure for approval which needs changing from a top-down imposition, to a meaningful consultation moderated by urban planners, and not by road builders.

One possible solution would be a public consultation exercise in each locality where all pending schemed roadworks are reappraised, based on modern realities and the input of environmental and heritage authorities.

All residents living beside these roads should be invited to town hall meetings where the authorities listen to their concerns.

In the absence of this, the risk is that a rogue Infrastructure Malta will keep using the tools it inherited from a past Nationalist administration to ride roughshod over local communities.

And for those busy asking where was MaltaToday when it all started... it was this newspaper which in 2010 questioned the asphalting of 56 countryside passages between 2005 and 2009 by the Gozo Ministry in the absence of a planning permit.