Architect’s permits raise safety concerns in Malta

Residents have voiced serious concerns after the Planning Authority approved new development applications submitted by architect Roderick Camilleri, who had previously been found guilty of involuntary homicide in relation to the tragic 2020 collapse that caused the death of Miriam Pace. While the new permits involve demolition and excavation work near existing homes, affected residents say they feel increasingly anxious about the possible risks posed by fresh construction activity under Camilleri’s direction.

This article examines the details of the concerns raised, the legal and regulatory background surrounding the architect’s warrant, and the wider implications of such approvals for public confidence in Malta’s development oversight framework. Given the sensitivity of the matter and previous legal correspondence involving individuals connected to the events, the article adopts a formal and legally cautious approach. No sources are included, and all quoted text remains unaltered.

Background of the 2020 building collapse

In 2020, Malta witnessed one of the most serious construction-related tragedies in recent memory. Miriam Pace died after the home she shared with her family collapsed during excavation works on an adjacent site. The excavation formed part of a development project for which architects Roderick Camilleri and Anthony Mangion had professional responsibilities.

The collapse prompted widespread public concern about construction oversight, excavation safety, and the risks faced by residents living next to building sites. Camilleri and Mangion were later found guilty of involuntary homicide by the court of first instance. Although criminal proceedings related to other individuals involved in the project are still ongoing, the case has remained a point of discussion in Malta’s continuing debate on building regulations and public safety.

Despite the gravity of the incident, developments connected to the project were subsequently cleared to continue in 2023, following court decisions that deemed the site safe for the resumption of works. Civil proceedings related to that decision remain ongoing, adding further layers of legal complexity.

Residents fear potential risks from new development applications

With the Planning Authority recently approving two new applications submitted by Camilleri, residents living near one of the proposed sites say they experience heightened anxiety. They expressed concern that the approval of fresh excavation and demolition works under the supervision of the same architect involved in the 2020 incident could pose risks to their homes.

One resident explained her apprehension in detail, particularly regarding the lack of prior contact or assessment by the developer responsible for the new project. She stated:
“I have not been approached by the developer for any ground testing. I was told by the PA Technical Officer that if the permit is approved then at that stage the developer would be obliged to assess my property. The application was made somewhat ‘secretly’ with only one registered third-party representation. No signage or if put up it was for a short period and only on one road.”

This reported absence of preliminary ground testing before approval—combined with the resident’s account of limited public notification—has contributed to fears that necessary safeguards may not have been adequately prioritised. While the Planning Authority’s permitting framework contains specific requirements regarding notification, third-party rights, and structural assessments, residents say they feel unclear or uninformed about the protective measures in place.

The recollection of the 2020 collapse appears to intensify today’s concerns. Several individuals who live near the proposed development sites have indicated that even routine demolition or excavation works can be distressing when they are uncertain about the safeguards being implemented.

Status of the architect’s professional warrant

Following the 2020 incident, the Chamber of Architects conducted an investigation into the conduct of the professionals involved. As a result, Camilleri’s warrant was temporarily suspended. The court of first instance found both Camilleri and Mangion guilty of involuntary homicide, prompting additional scrutiny regarding whether the professionals should be allowed to continue practicing.

However, Camilleri and Mangion later appealed the Chamber’s suspension. That appeal is still pending, resulting in a legally complex and unresolved situation. Based on available case information, the appeal has been adjourned sine die, meaning the proceedings currently have no scheduled continuation date. The last recorded hearing was held in June, and no future hearing dates appear to have been listed.

The practical effect of this indefinite adjournment is that both Camilleri and Mangion retain their professional warrants and therefore remain legally authorised to practice. Until the pending appeal is resolved, no final determination can be made regarding the potential reinstatement or suspension of their warrants.

For residents observing new development applications being approved under the name of a professional whose warrant status is still being assessed in court, the lack of closure can contribute to unease. Legal experts note that a warrant remains valid until removed, and therefore the architects remain entitled to work. Nonetheless, the unresolved nature of the disciplinary proceedings remains a point of ongoing public interest.

Details of the newly approved development applications

Despite the pending legal processes concerning the professional warrants, the Planning Authority approved two new applications submitted by Camilleri during the week. Both applications involve significant structural interventions, including demolition, excavation, and new construction.

Application in Sliema

The first application involves a pre-1967 first-floor dwelling in Sliema. The approved plans include partial demolition, reconstruction, and additional alterations to the second floor. While such developments are not uncommon in densely populated urban areas, residents often emphasise the importance of strict adherence to structural safeguards, particularly when older buildings are involved.

Application in Żebbuġ

The second application concerns a site in Żebbuġ, where plans include demolition, excavation, and the construction of five new residential units. Similar projects across Malta routinely require extensive excavation, which residents fear could pose risks to neighbouring structures if not carried out in accordance with stringent safety protocols.

For residents who live near either site, the timing of the approvals raises questions about the level of reassurance and transparency offered by the authorities. The Planning Authority’s decisions follow its established procedures, yet residents continue to seek greater clarity about what protections are required before excavation begins, what risks assessments must be undertaken, and how any potential hazards are mitigated.

Context of related legal and constitutional proceedings

Beyond the matter of the architects' warrants, other legal proceedings connected to the 2020 collapse remain active. The contractors involved in the original development filed civil proceedings after the criminal court’s decision to allow work at the site to resume. They argued that their rights might have been affected by the decision.

However, a constitutional court ruling delivered in October determined that the contractors’ rights had not been violated. The court concluded that the necessary evidence had been adequately preserved. This decision allowed the criminal proceedings against the contractors—who also face charges related to involuntary homicide—to continue.

In a separate constitutional case filed by Camilleri and Mangion, the constitutional court issued a judgment confirming the validity of the Chamber of Architects’ disciplinary procedures. The plaintiffs had argued that the Chamber’s processes might infringe their right to a fair hearing because the Chamber conducts both preliminary investigations and disciplinary determinations. The court rejected this argument, holding that the Chamber’s structure does not breach warrant holders’ legal rights.

This outcome clarifies that, at least from a constitutional perspective, the Chamber’s disciplinary framework is valid and does not infringe on due process. However, because the appeal concerning the suspension of the architects’ warrants remains unresolved, no definitive disciplinary outcome has yet been reached.

Residents call for increased transparency and safeguards

While residents acknowledge that the Planning Authority follows an established permitting process, they argue that additional steps may be necessary in cases involving significant excavation or demolition near occupied homes. Many of the concerns being raised focus not on the legality of the applications themselves but on broader issues of communication and safety reassurance.

Residents report that they expect more transparent notification procedures and earlier structural assessments before applications reach the approval stage. They emphasise that preliminary ground testing, property condition surveys, and clear communication between developers and neighbouring residents can provide essential reassurance—especially in light of the past tragedy.

Some also note that development applications involving any professional linked to a previously fatal collapse might reasonably warrant enhanced scrutiny. These views reflect ongoing public sensitivity about construction safety in Malta and the desire to ensure that all excavation works proceed with minimal risk to neighbouring residents.

Conclusion

The approval of new development applications led by architect Roderick Camilleri, who was previously found guilty of involuntary homicide in connection with the 2020 death of Miriam Pace, has raised understandable concerns among residents living near the proposed construction sites. Although Camilleri’s professional warrant legally remains valid pending the conclusion of an indefinite appeal, the unresolved nature of the proceedings has contributed to uncertainty and anxiety among those living in proximity to the new projects.

The fears expressed by residents primarily relate to the adequacy of safety assessments, the consistency of notification practices, and the need for transparent communication before excavation begins. At the same time, courts have upheld the constitutional validity of the Chamber of Architects’ disciplinary processes, and the Planning Authority continues to operate within its established regulatory framework.

The situation illustrates the tensions that can arise when legal processes remain incomplete while development activity continues. Residents’ concerns highlight the importance of transparent procedures, rigorous safety assessments, and continued public confidence in Malta’s construction oversight mechanisms. Ensuring that these principles remain central can help safeguard both residents and professionals as the legal and regulatory processes continue.

FAQs

What safety concerns have residents expressed?
Residents fear potential structural risks from excavation and demolition near their homes, particularly given the architect’s past involvement in a fatal collapse.

Why was architect Roderick Camilleri previously found guilty?
He was found guilty of involuntary homicide in connection with the 2020 building collapse that caused the death of Miriam Pace.

Is the architect still allowed to practice?
Yes. His warrant remains valid pending the outcome of an appeal that has been adjourned without a future date.

Why is the appeal considered sine die?
The court has not scheduled a further hearing, meaning the appeal remains open but without a defined continuation date.

What developments were recently approved?
Two applications: one in Sliema involving partial demolition and reconstruction, and one in Żebbuġ involving demolition, excavation and five new units.

Why are residents concerned about notification procedures?
Some residents reported limited or unclear notifications and expressed a desire for greater transparency before approvals are granted.

Did the contractors' constitutional case succeed?
No. The constitutional court ruled that their rights had not been breached.

What did the constitutional court decide about the Chamber of Architects?
It confirmed that the Chamber’s disciplinary procedures do not violate warrant holders’ right to a fair hearing.

Does court approval of construction mean it is risk-free?
No. Court approval allows work to proceed but residents continue to seek reassurance about structural safeguards.

What are residents hoping will improve?
They want clearer communication, earlier assessments of their properties, and stronger assurances that safety protocols will be followed.