The first anyone knew about it was when the pilot of a small plane, coming in to land on Runway 24 found a crane in his way.

Runway 24 is the shorter runway, running from east to west. It is normally used by small planes but around twice a week it is used by passenger planes while maintenance is carried out on the main runway.

The pilot reported the crane and after hectic consultations, Air Traffic Control and MIA closed down Runway 24.

The crane was doing excavation work just across the road from the airport perimeter, and also just across the road from the infamous monument on the roundabout and the Mambra showroom. MIA had not received any notification of the crane nor would it have allowed it, because it was higher than that permitted.

MIA officials reported the matter to Luqa police station but the only reply they received was that there was no issue of public order involved.

Contact was then established with Mepa to inquire about the status of any Mepa permits on this development. A Mepa official confirmed that a development permit had in fact been issued for this work, in spite of objections by MIA and the Department of Civil Aviation. MIA was also informed that the permit conditions do not include an obligation by the contractor to consult the DCA and/or MIA during the execution of the construction work.

Since time was passing, and the runway had now been closed for about two hours, with a knock-on impact on the airport’s operations, MIA contacted developer Charles Polidano, (Ic-Caqnu) whose company was the building constructor. Following discussions with the MIA officials, Mr Polidano voluntarily agreed to restrict the crane’s operations and to ensure coordination with MIA.

An MIA official told this paper: “We have to note that in spite of objections sustained against PA 04472-06, MIA and the Department of Civil Aviation were not re-consulted by Mepa prior to issuing the permit for this development. We strongly object to Mepa’s action in unilaterally assuming authority over decisions that have direct aeronautical safety implications and for which the ultimate responsibility lies with the Director General for Civil Aviation as the Regulator and MIA as the licensed aerodrome operator.

“Given that the site is located in such close proximity to an active runway, Mepa should at least have asked the applicant to submit an aeronautical risk assessment prior to overturning MIA’s and the DCA’s objections. In addition, given the significant potential for public gathering at the finished site, concern for public safety should have clearly precluded the permit from being issued.”

PA 4472/06 proposes to build a Lidl supermarket at the end of Carmel Street.

Lidl is a European discount supermarket chain of German origin that operates approximately 5,000 stores and has established itself in over 17 countries.

Lidl supermarkets normally consist of a one-floor structure offering a range of goods at very competitive prices. Particular detail is given to the provision of car parking, preferably aboveground. Permits for two other Lidl supermarkets have already been issued, one for the outskirts of San Gwann and the other in St Venera.

The application for the Luqa site was for a change of use of an existing two-storey building, including the construction of the main supermarket hall plus a 122-space car park on the side nearest to the street and the runway.

In fact, Mepa officials have told this paper that although the objections of the Civil Aviation Department and MIA were noted, “the Planning Directorate would like to note that in the safety zones, various refusals were recommended by the Planning Directorate related to this matter, but on the other hand development permits were issued with the following condition: “The applicant is aware that this application refers to a development in the proximity of the airport, and has already confirmed that such a permit is being issued on his/her sole responsibility and that consequently the Planning Authority shall not be responsible in any way for damages that may occur to the property or to the persons residing therein. This condition is to be registered (insinwata) and is to apply also to any future ownership.”

“In view of the above, it is to note that MEPA should not enter into such issues and development could be permitted if it deemed fit on planning grounds without the necessary inclusion of the above condition.

“The second and third parts of the comments received by MIA referred to the height of the proposed structure initially referred to them, which was 9.82 metres. The elevations hereby being referred for approval indicate a different design, with the supermarket structure being only 4.90 metres high, having its’ main pitched entrance roof being 7.04 metres high. The latter is 2.78 metres lower than that of the original submission and therefore the 2.5 metres excess has now been limited.

“On the other hand, with regard to the fourth point of MIA’s comments, it is to note that no details on the lighting in such areas were originally submitted by the architect. Hence, the architect was informed of these comments and subsequently submitted the relative information showing that the proposed lighting will all be in the form of down lighters, similar to those installed during the upgrading of Qormi Road parallel to the runway.”

These down lighters were the now vandalised bollard-like light structures along the road there.

Further inquiries by this paper with Mepa found that although initial perceptions may lead one to think the proposed supermarket will be smack in the middle of the approach to the runway, the so-called red zone, the supermarket will all be in the blue zone, as is the building at its back (which is higher than the proposed supermarket tent) and also the showroom across the road, and as are a number of other buildings further to the back.

Only part of the site earmarked for an open-air car park will be in the red zone, and most of this area will be the landscaping part of it.

Mepa officials pointed out that even airports abroad, such as the one in Reggio Calabria, have buildings just off the runway.

On the other hand, if the presence of buildings were to force MIA to shorten the take-off distance on Runway 24, this could mean that passenger planes would not then be able to take off from this runway and the airport could thus face becoming inoperational in case of an inability to use the longer runway.

An MIA official commented: “In my view, the case officer’s report rescinds any Planning Directorate obligation to uphold Policy AVN 3. The Directorate’s approach was to support a decision which protects Mepa’s interest through a notarial deed at the expense of ignoring the risk to the general public and related liabilities through this decision originating from potential accidents within the PSZ.”