Marsa footbridge works defied spirit of the law, Planning Ombudsman says

Ombudsman proposes that it should be the planning board and not the PA chairman that should determine whether emergency works by government entities can go ahead without a permit

The construction of the pedestrian bridge started without a planning permit but Infrastructure Malta classified the project as emergency works thus requiring only the PA chairman's approval to proceed (Photo: Infrastructure Malta)
The construction of the pedestrian bridge started without a planning permit but Infrastructure Malta classified the project as emergency works thus requiring only the PA chairman's approval to proceed (Photo: Infrastructure Malta)

The construction of a pedestrian bridge in Marsa without a planning permit defied the "spirit of the law", Planning Ombudsman Alan Saliba said.

Saliba reached the conclusion after investigating a complaint filed by Opposition spokesperson Robert Cutajar.

The bridge spanning 30m across Triq it-Tiġrija is supported by a three-storey high lift structure and works started in the absence of a planning permit on the basis of a law exempting emergency works carried out by public entities from seeking permission.

However, the Ombudsman said this practice does not respect the “spirit of the law” which already limits such works to situations where the danger is of a gravity that warrants an immediate solution.

The report established that in this case the works were authorised by Planning Authority chairman Martin Saliba who has discretionary powers in such cases.

According to the Ombudsman, apart from violating the spirit of the law, this practice “does not set a good example to the general public which often has to face bureaucratic procedures to carry out works in their own property.”

In this case Infrastructure Malta invoked public safety to commence works on the bridge on which an application submitted in 2019 was still pending.

The area is often used by migrants to crossover from Qormi to Marsa by cutting across four lanes.

IM had also referred to a fatal incident a few days after the commencement of the works as justification for its actions.
The Ombudsman said the problem could have been addressed by installing far less invasive pelican lights as is already the case 300m further down the road. 

But in his report the ombudsman insists that in this case “one should not point a finger at the entity carrying out the works as the works were carried out with the blessing of the Planning Authority.” Moreover, while on one hand the PA was processing and even approved the application for the bridge, it contradicted this by decreeing that the works did not require a permit.

The Planning Ombudsman proposed an overhaul in the permitting system for infrastructural works to eliminate the discretionary power of the PA chairman.

He proposed that Infrastructure Malta or any other government entity which intends to carry out major works in the absence of a planning permit should first seek the authorisation of the Planning Board, which should decide on such requests in a few days.

While Infrastructure Malta replied to the Ombudsman’s queries and promised to be more sensitive in future cases, the PA did not even reply to two letters sent by the Planning Ombudsman.

Cutajar reacted to the report by saying that this further vindicated his call for the resignation of PA chairman Martin Saliba.