Let me begin by providing some information. In Malta, there are specific regulations crafted to ensure that, before initiating any work involving demolition, excavation, or construction adjacent to third-party property, established methodologies are in place.

These regulations are outlined in Subsidiary Legislation 623.06. Enacted in 2019, the primary objective of these regulations is to reduce the risk of damage to third-party property and prevent potential injuries resulting from the proposed works.

For free-standing buildings, the comprehensive provisions of the law take precedence, grounded in the civil and criminal code obligations of all parties involved. This entails ensuring that the work is executed with skill, prudence and in adherence to regulations.

However, when it comes to works adjacent to third-party properties, there are distinct regulations to adhere to, specifi­cally outlined in Subsidiary

Legislation 623.06. Incidentally, these regulations were preceded by another set of regulations that were enacted in 2013. (Legal Notice 72 of 2013.)

To be fair, before the enactment of the 2019 amendments, there was already a requirement for condition reports to document the condition of adjacent properties and method statements outlining the procedures for demolition and excavation.

However, there were no specific guidelines on how to prepare these reports and statements. On a more serious note, the method statements were not accessible to the public and rarely vetted.

The situation underwent a complete transformation in 2019, as I will elaborate shortly.

Comprehensive reports on these changes are scarce in newspapers, likely due to the perceived technical intricacies. However, after scrutinising an editorial in the Times of Malta (November 23, 2023), I deem it essential to provide clarification on the key implications of the 2019 changes.

Following the 2019 revisions, it became crucial to incorporate a comprehensive identification of the structural system within the building when preparing the condition report for the neighbouring property.

This involves specifying how loads are transmitted to the foundations, estimating the load reaching foundation level in kN/m or kN, identifying the type and dimensions of foundations within the designated zone and estimating the bearing pressure at foundation level for strip footings, pad footings  and raft foundations in kN/m². Prior to the implementation of the 2019 amendments, we lacked any of these provisions.

Furthermore, the 2019 amendments necessitated well-defined method statements. Un­like the previous lack of guidance on how to formulate them, these amendments make it obligatory to specify, particularly in the case of excavation, the starting point of the excavation, any required phasing for achieving necessary rock buttressing, the levels to be attained at each stage of the excavation, permitted machinery equipment, prohibited machinery equipment  and, if applicable, the type and location of the crane to be used. Once more, the earlier regulations did not encompass these specificities.

Following the 2019 revisions, when constructing over third-party properties, the architect acting on behalf of the permit holder is required to conduct several checks before proceeding with the construction activities. These checks include demon­strating that the foundations of the building can withstand any additional loads imposed on the existing storeys. Additionally, the architect must estimate both the existing and proposed loads at the foundation level. Information regarding the nature of the building’s foundations, including type and dimensions, must be detailed.

The method statement should also encompass data about the ground, supported by ground investigation reports, which must be attached to the method statement. I understand that these changes imposed a considerable burden.

In the context of demolition, the method statement now requires an inclusion of the risks involved, considering the structural condition of the construction itself and contiguous structures. The sequence of works to be under­taken, measures to ensure the stability of the works being carried out and the stability of contiguous structures or terrain are crucial elements.

In the context of demolition, the method statement now requires an inclusion of the risks involved- Robert Musumeci

The method statement must also outline the types of machinery equipment permitted for use and those prohibited.

These stringent requirements aim to ensure thorough planning and risk assessment, enhancing the safety and stability of construction and demolition activities. These changes were also implemented in 2019. I am aware that many individuals find this burdensome and prefer the previous situation.

Another novelty is that the preparation of these method statements is a collaborative effort and cannot be done in isolation. The architect, in conjunction with the site technical officer and the contractor responsible for the works covered by the statement, is responsible for crafting these documents. I understand that many view this as a waste of time, as the expectation is that a contractor should be competent enough to understand written instructions given by an engineer.

Furthermore, a novel provision was introduced in 2019, mandating that these documents are made available online for the first time, allowing third parties the opportunity to raise objections to the proposed activities. I am aware that many people believe that this has led to unnecessary litigious issues, ultimately impacting even small-scale developers without a profit-making agenda.

An additional critical aspect introduced in 2019 involves the introduction of a site technical officer being an integral part of the contractor’s team.

Their role is to ensure that the contractor complies with all obligations outlined in these regu­lations. According to the regulations established in 2019, if the site technical officer detects any violation of these rules during the course of the work, they must promptly cease opera­tions and inform both the responsible permit holder and the Building Construction Authority. I understand that many people strongly believe that contractors should not be overly regulated but should instead be responsible enough to manage their actions.

Moreover, the 2019 regulations impose a requirement for insurance coverage, which must not be less than €750,000. This insurance coverage is expected to persist until such time that all demolition, excavation, or construction work is officially certified as complete by the architect in charge of the project. Some contend that this places an excessively heavy burden on small investors.

These ideas may be seen by some as ‘loopholes’ but I stand firm in my support for these changes and, frankly, I suggest that we should take things a step further.

The next phase should entail allowing permission only to registered contractors who demonstrate competence or have qualified individuals within their organisation for their specific trade.

Additionally, the presence of a competent person on site at all times should be mandatory. In that way, the role of the site technical officer could be phased out. An additional pivo­tal consideration is whether construction drawings, prepared by engineers representing permit holders, should undergo scrutiny by authorities before implementation.

The Police Code already includes a provision to that effect specifically for tall buildings. Nevertheless, I defer to the Board of the Sofia Inquiry to provide its perspective on the latter matter.

Robert Musumeci is a lecturer in planning and administrative law, holding a Ph.D. in the field.