Xemxija excavations do not have permit - Mepa

The excavation works carried out by Polidano Brothers in Xemxija - just before a mudslide left part of an adjacent apartment block sticking out into thin air - had no permit or any form of sanctioning, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority said.

No development or excavation permits for the site in question exist and the area actually falls outside the development scheme, Sylvana Debono, a spokesman for the authority, told The Times.

The aerial photo taken after the mudslide by airphoto.com.mt shows the extent of the excavations. Going by Mepa's online planning data, the red outline on the captioned picture indicates the area outside the development zone.

The mudslide, reported by The Times last Wednesday, occurred just over a week ago. The earth slid out from beneath the block's foundations, exposing the underside of the building which stands adjacent to a plot of land being excavated by Polidano Brothers.

Paul Polidano, one of the company's directors, had told The Times that his company had detected some movement in the silt while they were carrying out work some days before and decided to have the families living in the block evacuated.

Over the years, two enforcement notices were issued in connection with work on this site, in 2002 (315/02) and 2004 (762/04), but excavations continued sporadically up until last week, after which the mudslide occurred.

According to Mepa, the illegal work included the removal of protected carob trees, which landed the developer in court late in 2004.

After the first enforcement notice was issued, the developer applied for a permit to develop a series of residential units complete with garages along with a structure that would retain the adjacent bypass - the inner lane of which had collapsed back in 2000.

Ms Debono explained that the excavation work carried out over a number of years rendered the area unstable and Mepa was prepared to concede some sort of emergency work intended to mitigate the danger.

In such cases the procedure is that the developer has to submit what is known as a method statement, outlining the risks posed by the site and how he intends securing it.

However, Polidano Brothers first ignored the authority's request and only submitted a letter to this effect last Thursday, five days after the mudslide.

When confronted with this information last week, Mr Polidano, said he had the necessary permits. When asked for the name of the architect overseeing the excavation, he said he did not know who it was.

Mepa told The Times that the enforcement notices were issued after Polidano Brothers excavated part of an area for which there was no permit. The authority then conceded emergency works to remove any impending danger and the works now being carried out, under the responsibility of the applicant's architects, were deemed to be remedial, made to stabilise the site.

A number of residents had complained formally to the authority about the situation, through an official letter dated July 6, 2005, of which The Times has a copy. In the letter, the residents highlighted the fact that the site was outside the development zone and that therefore it should have been refused a permit.

Moreover, they complained that despite two enforcement notices (315/2002) and (762/2004), work on the site had continued.

"This brazen and very apparent non-observance of the enforcement order without any form of punitive action from Mepa has alarmed my clients, as they logically fear that notwithstanding the seeming impossibility of application number 2358/2002 being approved, things might turn out otherwise," the residents' lawyer wrote.

Ms Debono said the authority had taken all the steps at its disposal to stop illegalities, to the extent that the developer had been arraigned in court for damaging protected flora (the carob trees).

However, the authority did not have the power to physically stop the development or secure the site itself and neither could it fine the developer.

The authority specified that it does not enter into third party rights which are safeguarded by law. The architects, it said, are liable for the safety of the site.

In fact, Ms Debono continued, the letter of objection was a normal part of the planning process: "The matter will be dealt with when the application is discussed".

Last week, the company's administrator told The Times he had been instructed to say that the company would be in a position to answer further questions on Monday (yesterday). The Times waited for the replies but the company failed to answer. Among other things, The Times asked Polidano Brothers to comment on the fact that work was being carried out without permits and about Mepa's claim that no method statement had been submitted before the mudslide occurred.

mmicallef@timesofmalta.com