Editorial

Not before time, Malta is to have a Building Regulations Office charged with oversight of building regulations compliance. The new office, which will be set up under a new Act expected to be presented to Parliament in October, will not however be vetting so-called "method statements".

A method statement is a description of the work to be carried out, including any potential hazards, and a step by step guide on how to do the job safely. Such method statements will have to be submitted by all developers carrying out work in urban areas. Since that includes virtually the whole of Malta, this should be seen as an important initiative.

The method statement will also include a report by the developer on the condition of adjoining properties since developers would be liable for any damage to third-party property. So far so good.

Under the new regulations, however, it will be up to residents adjacent to the building site to examine these statements and to object if they believe the way the work is to be carried out does not provide sufficient safeguards for their property. If this objection is found to be validly based, the Building Regulations Office can stop the works on site and can invite the developer to submit a revised method, or even to halt works if the conditions have been breached.

In most cases, those neighbours wishing to invoke their right to examine the method statement - the owners of the properties adjacent to the development - will have to commission an architect to review it. This is a professional task which will inevitably mean payment to the architect employed to carry it out.

When asked about the fairness of imposing this extra cost on the innocent neighbouring house-holder, Minister George Pullicino said - with the insouciance of somebody who has been in office for too long - that one could choose to appoint an architect, or not. "That's life".

Well, yes Minister. But surely there may be other solutions which, in equity, would prevent the innocent house-holder from having to bear the additional costs himself for work being carried out not of his making or of his choosing.

After all, it is he, or more likely she, who will be having to endure the dust, noise and inconvenience of the development next door. Must they also have to pay for this "privilege"?

An alternative, surely, is to make the cost of providing this technical advice the responsibility of the developer - who presumably stands most to gain financially from his development. This is what is done in the case of Environmental Impact Assessments.

A difficulty with this approach might arise, however, where neighbours act in a vexatious manner, simply to spite their neighbour next door.

But would this really be so? Since most people having a major development thrust upon them next door would wish to undertake an examination of the method statement - not for vexatious purposes, but for reasons simply of prudent self-interest - it would seem sensible, on balance, if our legislators were to re-visit this aspect of the new regulations when they come before Parliament in October.

The aim of a good law should be to ensure greater equity for the party who will be most inconvenienced by any neighbouring development.