A group of three drunken people stand up together clinging to one another, desperately trying to control their situation, trying hard not to fall shamefully to the ground. However, if one of them falls down, the likelihood is that their stability is prejudiced and the rest would follow suit and bite the dust.

When demolishing a property, the most critical interface is that of the foundation and the rock.

There are cases where:

1) the excavation extends under neighbouring properties;

2) the foundation is not based on a solid rock layer;

3) the foundation is on soil;

4) the neighbouring foundation was built on third party property; and

5) there is an inconsistency in the foundation along the length of the party wall.

To clarify the above, there are cases where the foundation of a neighbouring property was built soundly on rock for 25 metres and then on soil for a three-metre span.

Alternatively, there are cases where foundations extend into third party property abusively, thus prejudicing the right to develop one’s own property.

There are instances where the obligatory 75-centimetre distance is not required and there are instances where this is not enough.

There are occasions where building construction methods adopted may prejudice adjacent future development.

I have seen cases where the introduction of piles under a structure was more of a detriment than an asset. However, I would not like to take this opinion on a technical line.

Perhaps demolition works should be linked to construction works, not allowing a long period between the two

In Malta, we have a moratorium in tourist areas in relation to demolition works in the summer months. Conversely, in winter the demolition of a building may have a deteriorating effect on third parties.

Which is the worst?

Perhaps demolition works should be linked to construction works, not allowing a long period between the two. These are not the only concerns.

Many people incorrectly think that a two-skin bonded party wall has divided ownership. In fact, neither of the owners of such a party wall is allowed to remove any of the skins as this may compromise its structural integrity. A party wall is in itself undivided. No owner has any special right to dismantle it, whole nor partially.

It is not only the buildings that one needs to keep an eye on. There are many buildings that are crying out for maintenance and which are a risk to the community.

Broken glass in balconies, deteriorating retaining walls, spalling concrete in residences, projecting cornices with minor cracks in them caused by the fixing of services using steel nails (these structures are not usually noticed).

It is by it by sheer luck that the damage is not more widespread.

The way forward needs to ensure there is awareness of the construction methodology. Was the structure being demolished built before or after the neighbouring ones? One must understand the site conditions and the proposed foundations.

Neighbouring properties need to be protected at all times, ensuring that one’s building methods do not compromise the possible future development of neighbouring properties.

The most important thing is not the condition of the rock under one’s property but the determination of the condition of the foundations under the adjacent neighbour’s property.

It is only the removal of the loose material down to rock level that can expose problems. If this is done in carefully-designed sections, the danger can be eliminated. Such geological investigation will help to determine the minimum distance from the neighbour’s property/depth to be excavated.

In large sites, trial holes can be made without any detriment to neighbours.

If a property is in a dangerous state, then not even an application to the Planning Authority should be enough to remove the danger. If you can wait, then it is not dangerous.

Andrew Ellul is an architect and civil engineer.

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece