TMID Editorial: Building first and asking questions later

Malta's construction boom has long been accompanied by concerns about safety, regulation and the pace at which development is being approved. Over the years, the public has become accustomed to reports of buildings collapsing or being severely damaged when neighbouring properties are demolished or when deep excavation works begin. Residents have been forced to evacuate their homes, sometimes with little warning, while investigations attempt to determine what went wrong. Each incident sparks outrage, inquiries and promises of reform. Yet the underlying sense remains that the system continues to move faster than the safeguards designed to protect the public. What has been highlighted to The Malta Independent on Sunday in an interview with the president of the Malta Chamber of Geologists, Dr Peter Gatt, introduces a further and more fundamental concern. His warning does not focus on demolition procedures or construction practices alone. Rather, it points to a structural flaw in the planning system itself: the lack of mandatory geological assessment before development permits are granted. In simple terms, buildings are being approved without a clear understanding of the ground they will stand on. That reality should alarm anyone who lives in a country experiencing such intense and continuous construction activity. Malta's skyline is changing rapidly, with taller buildings, deeper excavations and increasingly complex projects becoming commonplace. Yet if the planning framework does not require a professional geological assessment of the terrain before development begins, the risk being taken is obvious. Ground conditions matter. They determine how foundations should be designed, how excavation should be carried out and whether the land is even suitable for the type of development proposed. Without that knowledge, construction becomes partly a matter of assumption rather than science. Gatt's remarks also highlight something that is perhaps even more troubling: Malta appears to be lagging significantly behind comparable European jurisdictions. In countries such as Italy and Greece, geological assessments are a mandatory part of the development process. A qualified geologist evaluates the ground conditions and produces a report before construction proceeds. In Malta, however, while core extraction may be required, there is no clear obligation that a geologist conduct the assessment or that a comprehensive geological model of the site be produced. This gap may appear technical, but its implications are not. When ground conditions are poorly understood, a range of problems can follow. Buildings may experience settlement. Excavations can become unstable. Structural stresses may develop in ways that were not anticipated during the design phase. What Gatt is pointing out is that a basic precaution may be missing from the system altogether. If development permits can be issued without a proper geological understanding of the site, then the regulatory framework is incomplete. It means that the connection between what is built and the ground on which it is built is not being systematically addressed. At a time when construction activity continues to multiply, that omission is difficult to justify. Economic growth and urban development are important, but they cannot come at the expense of safety and sound planning. The drive to build quickly should not override the need to build responsibly. Geological assessments are not an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle; they are a fundamental safeguard in any country where excavation and large-scale construction are taking place. Malta has already learned, often the hard way, that construction without adequate oversight carries serious consequences. The warnings now being raised should therefore not be ignored or treated as technical complaints from a specialised profession. They point to a gap in the planning system that needs to be addressed before further risks are taken. The country cannot afford to discover, after the fact, that developments were approved on ground that was never properly understood in the first place.
2026-03-17 07:40:00