I refer to Harry Vassallo's opinion column Toothless Tiger (October 14). Without deigning to consult the files, Dr Vassallo felt confident enough to assert that there is no enforcement notice against the illegalities committed by his party member. The following is a chronology which may be extracted from all the publicly accessible sections of the relevant file.
November 24, 2003: A report was received from the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage (SCH) that excavations were taking place at Rabat, questioning whether the works were covered by a development permit.
November 27, 2003: The report was forwarded to the enforcement unit and the site was identified.
November 28, 2003: Representatives from the integrated heritage management team of the Environment Protection Directorate visited the site and confirmed the illegal activity. Material of archaeological significance was found.
On the same day, enforcement officers visited the site where they met Mark Causon, as the owner, and ordered him to desist from carrying out further works. Mr Causon was told that a stop and enforcement notice will be issued. The Superintendent of Cultural Heritage was informed of the findings and of the action taken by Mepa officers.
December 10, 2003: A formal application was submitted by Mr Causon requesting to sanction the works. The application included the construction of a pool. The site was indicated as being in Triq l-Isptar.
January 26, 2004: Mepa advised that proposed alterations within the building may only be acceptable if the architect amends plans excluding the pool while reinstating the archaeologically disturbed area under the SCH guidance and supervision.
April 13, 2004: The application was amended to exclude the construction of the pool. The application was republished.
May 31, 2004: The Planning Directorate recommended the approval of the application.
June 30, 2004: The DCC deferred the consideration of the application and requested guidance from the executive committee.
August 20, 2004: Works were noticed on site in spite of ECF. The enforcement officer noted that the site plan submitted did not reflect the actual site. An amended site plan was submitted by the applicant on August 24, 2004.
October 5, 2004: Internal memo by the IHM team following an assessment carried out described remains as Roman pottery and masonry. It also stated that excavations had already been backfilled against their recommendations.
December 21, 2004: The DCC requested the advice of the SCH before determining the application. The SCH did not reply.
July 12, 2005: The DCC refused the application due to illegal excavation within an archaeologically sensitive area. Mepa will follow up with SCH on the issue of the active enforcement on the site, requesting the best way forward for reinstating and conserving the site of the excavation.
The audit officer communicated with Mr Causon that the enforcement notice was served on the owner of the property, himself, who applied for a development as per application PA 7378/03. In this file, the certificate of ownership carries the signature of Mr Causon. He also inspected the photographs which Mr Causon submitted with this application and they clearly indicate the same building which was photographed by the enforcement officer. Property is not called immovable for nothing.