Construction within established urban areas

One of the consequences of the "temporary" building schemes as set out in 1988 but which after 15 years have never been updated is that over the years the amount of virgin land that can be developed within the schemes has decreased drastically. This has contributed in no small way to the spiralling cost of land and in some instances plots for development are no longer available.

This has led developers to start redeveloping existing properties. Today, the situation is that less than 10 per cent of all development takes place on virgin land. For example, in the list of Mepa applications of July 19 only 14 out of a total of 153 applications envisaged development of virgin sites.

The development of existing properties within established urban areas in itself is a positive development since it halts the sprawl of development. However, it gives rise to other problems which need to be addressed.

One major problem occurs when it is proposed to carry out excavation works to create basement space next to old (and probably lived in) buildings.

Today, developers try to maximise the amount of available space and so are loath to keep this excavation 30 inches away for the party wall as requested by law. In most instances, they excavate the rock right up to the party wall (and sometimes even underneath it).

As a consequence, damage is caused to the adjoining property, which might be substantial in the case of older properties. Likewise, such damage may also occur in case of careless demolition work. Such damage has in some cases led to the collapse of old buildings with the consequence of injury and even death of the occupants.

When such damage occurs, it usually leads to protracted negotiations for the making good of the damage and in many instances to legal action instituted against the developer and the contractor. Such court cases usually take years to be decided and in the meantime the developer would have finished and probably sold off his development.

Although Mepa is not directly responsible for such occurrences, in my opinion it should include conditions in planning permits for such development which would protect third parties.

One way of doing this is by including as a permit condition regulating distance from party walls for all excavation works. It could also impose a bank guarantee against damages to third parties on the developers which is released after completion of works. Mepa could also insist on a contractor for all risks insurance prior to the issue of the development permit.

Another issue which Mepa needs to regulate forcefully in the case of such development is the area immediately outside the development site.

In such instances when development is taking place within an established street, contractors should not be allowed to treat the street as their yard. This causes great inconvenience to neighbours and other people using such a street.

Local councils also have an important role to play to ensure that hardship and nuisance to neighbours is kept to a minimum.

Similar action needs to be taken to regulate the period of work since such work usually causes nuisance and disturbance because of the noise produced by the construction activity.

By all means let us contain urban sprawl and channel new development into established urban areas but let us ensure that we do not produce new problems in an attempt to solve existing ones.

Mr Buhagiar is the Labour Party's main spokesman on public works and transport.