The tenth commandment

Ihave on reflection concluded that, contrary to popular perception, it is the tenth commandment and not the sixth that is more often breached in Malta Cattolicissima.

For those who do not recall the catechism learnt so many moons ago, the tenth forbids us 'coveting' the belongings of our neighbours - the sort of sentiment that, among other things, makes one think that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

This came to mind when in The Times last Tuesday I read that a law is being concocted to give the right to 'residents of neighbouring building sites to vet method statements'. While there is no doubt that citizens affected by building operations next door need to be protected far more than at present, I thought that the idea of the neighbour having the right to 'vet' method statements being used for these operations goes a bit over the top.

Every citizen has a right to enjoy his property - without coveting his neighbour's, I would add. Unfortunately, enhancing one's home without taking care to avoid damaging the neighbours' property has become a very common abuse that the government has decided, rightly, to control.

The report in The Times implied that some aspects of the rights of one's property were being handed over, surreptitiously, to one's neighbour. That would have been a very dangerous thing: neighbours who disregard the tenth commandment would take the opportunity to abuse the law and use it as a stick to punish the guys next door for motives that have nothing to do with the redevelopment of their property. After all, this is Malta, where everybody 'loves' his neighbour so much!

I couldn't help recalling that when the rent laws took some of the rights of landlords and gave them over to the tenants, many landlords had to buy back their rights from the tenants by paying them good money in cash or in kind. I envisaged a scenario where developers will resort to paying the owners (and the occupiers) of neighbouring properties to let them develop what is only theirs.

I sought to check what is actually being proposed. To my surprise - and relief - I found out that the journalist reporting the press conference launching the draft regulations got it all wrong. In fact, these do not give neighbours the right to vet, or in any way endorse, the method statement prepared by the architect responsible for the development next door.

People are simply being given the right to see the method statement and to object to it, presumably through their own architect, if there is something that causes them concern. It is only if this objection is found to be based on valid reasons that the Building Regulations Office - still to be set up - can stop the works on site.

As the state keeps limiting the possibility of building on virgin land, the building industry will keep on being enticed to go for more redevelopment projects. From a cursory look at the applications for development that are submitted to the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, one can easily conclude that the majority of applications for new residential and commercial units call for the redevelopment of already built-up sites.

The increase in height limitations in certain localities, which were previously mostly developed with two storey terraced houses, has encouraged a lot of redevelopment in these areas. This rethinking on the height limitations was intended to decrease the pressure on government to allow even more urban sprawl than Malta has experienced since the end of World War II - even though, as can be statistically proven, the momentum of this sprawl was substantially slowed down in the last 20 years.

In this scenario, many started complaining about the problems and inconvenience they were facing as a result of redevelopment works next door. The irresponsibility of some developers and contractors acerbated these problems: in some cases due respect for other people's rights was sadly missing. On the other hand, I know from personal experience that different people react differently to this type of inconvenience. Some are fair and understanding while others are obviously motivated by what can only be a blatant breach of the tenth commandment.

In the current circumstances, the state is justified to pursue the aim of protecting third party property during building operations in adjacent sites. Up to now, owners of property that is damaged by works in neighbouring sites could only claim compensation after the event, sometimes having to go to court suing stubborn and short-sighted developers who refuse to make good or pay costs of actual damage. Serious developers and contractors should, however, not be unduly troubled with the proposed increase in safeguards for the protection of third party property.

Whether the proposed new system will foster healthier relations between neighbours has still to be seen. Things will certainly be much better, however, if citizens made a genuine effort at observing the tenth commandment, rather than considering the new regulations as another weapon to be used in the pursuit of some inane pique with their neighbours.

micfal@maltanet.net