Geologists warn planning reform leaves ground safety as an afterthought

The Malta Chamber of Geologists has called for mandatory geological investigations before development permits are approved, warning that the government’s proposed planning appeals reform fails to address the fundamental issue of geological risk and safety.

Under current law, development permits can be acted upon while they are still under appeal, meaning irreversible works may already have been carried out by the time a permit is revoked.

The proposed reform would introduce the automatic suspension of works once a qualifying appeal is filed, with the suspension remaining in place until the case is decided.

However, the chamber noted that while the Bill focuses heavily on legal procedures, timelines and appeals, it fails to adequately address building safety, environmental protection, and risks to public safety.

Under the proposed legislation, neither the granting of a development permit nor the submission of a commencement notice requires the geological safety of a site to be assessed. As a result, the chamber said, geological risks are often only considered after a full planning permit has been issued and works have already begun.

The Chamber of Geologists therefore proposed making, at minimum, preliminary geological site assessments mandatory before full development permission is granted.

Geological assessments can identify hidden ground conditions that may affect the stability of an excavation or surrounding structures, including fractures and weaknesses in rock, unstable clay, underground cavities and groundwater.

If such risks are not identified before works begin, they can lead to ground movement, damage to neighbouring properties, excavation failure and, in severe cases, the partial or total collapse of a structure.

Identifying these hazards before a permit is issued allows excavation methods, foundations and other safeguards to be designed around the site’s actual conditions, rather than problems only emerging once works are underway.

Such assessments would identify issues including site viability, rock stability and ground-failure hazards before construction is approved, reducing the risk of permits being issued for unsafe developments.

The chamber also pointed to recommendations from the Jean Paul Sofia public inquiry which have yet to be implemented, including a proposal that a geological report be carried out before any ground excavation takes place.

It said consideration of ground conditions must be formally integrated into regulatory decision-making and called for geologists to be represented on bodies involved in development decisions, including the Building and Construction Consultative Council (BCCC) and the Planning Authority.

It further urged government to require the Planning Authority and the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) to follow a unified standard under which a geologist’s assessment forms a core part of the approval process for any development involving major excavation or rock-cutting works.

The chamber said such a requirement would not be unusual, noting that comprehensive geological reports before permit approval are already standard practice in several neighbouring European countries, including Italy and Greece.

Making geological assessments mandatory in development legislation would bring Malta’s regulatory framework closer in line with standards elsewhere in the EU, it said, while improving structural safety and identifying risks linked to excavation and construction before works begin.

The chamber also raised concerns over provisions allowing the Planning Board broad discretion to depart from existing policy on the basis of “spatial, architectural, or contextual considerations,” arguing that the framework contains no specific criteria relating to subsurface conditions.

It therefore proposed incorporating standard geological risk maps into the planning framework to identify areas affected by hazards such as unstable cliffs, rockfall zones, karst topography, and clay slopes.

Planning decisions, the chamber concluded, should be legally required to take geological hazards and mitigation measures into account, rather than treating ground stability as an afterthought.