Inquiry into building site mudslide

The government has ordered an inquiry into the circumstances that led to a mudslide on a construction site at Xemxija on January 21, leaving part of a neighbouring building hanging in midair.

Environment Minister George Pullicino told Parliament last night that a board of inquiry was being given six weeks to report on:

¤ The nature and extent of the works done on the site and whether they were covered by a Mepa development permit;

¤ Establish the actions taken by Mepa and whether they were adequate to ensure that works were carried out according to permits;

¤ Establish whether enforcement procedures, particularly stop and enforcement notices were adequate and effective in such cases;

¤ Make whatever recommendations were deemed necessary.

The board is headed by Mepa auditor, architect Joe Falzon, who heads the Faculty of Architecture. The members are architect Victor Torpiano, deputy chairman, architect Peter Zammit, architect Kevin Gatt and Kevin Aquilina.

The minister said in an adjournment speech that it appeared that excavation and other works had been carried out at the site of the incident. The works were not covered by Mepa permits and although an enforcement notice was issued by the authority, initial investigations showed that not all possible steps were taken for the works to be stopped.

The people responsible for these works had tried to justify their actions by arguing that they needed to eliminate the danger. Whether this was actually the case still had to be established.

Mr Pullicino said he wanted to correct the impression given by some people in the media that Mepa was responsible for the safety of neighbours.

The authority was not responsible for the safety of structures belonging to third parties. This responsibility rested on those who carried out the works and their architect.

In terms of the law, Mepa had nothing to do with civil matters such as the safety of construction and potential damage to properties of third parties, issues of ownership and servitudes.

The rights of neighbours in the context of construction or other works alongside their properties were regulated by the Civil Code, clause 402. Furthermore, clause 440 provided that whoever damaged neighbouring buildings owing to excavation works was liable for damages, even if the required distance laid down in clause 439 had been observed.

Whoever carried out such works could ask a court to establish the safe distance prior to the commencement of the works.

Property owners could, in terms of clause 538, ask a court to stop works which were seen as likely to cause damage.

There was also no doubt, Mr Pullicino said, that whenever property was damaged, the owners could sue for damages.

The minister pointed out that the Police Code, clause 103, included provisions on criminal responsibility relating to the owners, architects and builders.

He said that Mepa insisted that no development permit applications could be accepted unless an architect declared that the works were carried out under his supervision.

Mr Pullicino said that apart from the issues of safety, which did not fall within Mepa's responsibilities, there were other issues where he, like many people, was demanding answers for.

If there was illegal development, why did Mepa not take all the measures allowed by law to ensure that the work was stopped?

Was it the case that the tools available to the enforcement section were not adequate enough in situations where structures or sites were dangerous?

Was it the case that some officials had not taken all the action they could have taken?

These were among the issues which the board of inquiry would investigate.

The minister also pointed out that on the initiative of his ministry, the Management Efficiency Unit of the Office of the Prime Minister had reviewed the activities of Mepa's Development Control and Enforcement section.

A change management team had been set up to implement the changes which the MEU had recommended. It was for this reason that architect Kevin Gatt, chairman of the change management team, formed part of the board of inquiry.

Last November, Mr Pullicino said, he wrote to Mepa asking it to consider proposals to better deal with building outside development zones. He had also urged Mepa to issue more frequent stop notices including action to seal off illegal developments.

Although there had been an increase in enforcement actions over the past few years, he believed that Mepa needed to be more effective and serve as a stronger deterrent.

Mepa had the faculty to refuse a development application where it was found that works had continued despite the issue an enforcement notice. He had insisted that Mepa should exercise this faculty.

These proposals had been discussed by the Mepa board and progress was made in this sense. A legal amendment would come into force shortly raising the maximum fine for the sanctioning of illegal development to Lm10,000 from the current Lm1,000.

The law needed to be applied consistently with everyone because well regulated development was the best guarantee of development for the common good, Mr Pullicino concluded.