Damages to adjoining properties resulting from construction is unfortunately a common occurrence. In most instances, these damages are relatively of a minor nature but, even so, the cost and inconvenience caused to the neighbour can be substantial.
A few weeks ago, I announced new regulations aimed at reducing the possibility of damage to third party property from construction. The process as set out in the regulations envisages three safeguards to third party property as follows.
First, a method statement is to be prepared by the architect of the developer. The architect is taking responsibility for that method statement. Defining responsibilities is a means of ensuring that the method statement is done in the best possible manner.
Second, the method statement can be seen by neighbours who may object if they chose to do so. Method statements can be very technical in nature so it is in the interest of the neighbour to appoint an architect to review the method statement. If the objection of the architect appointed by the neighbour is found to be valid, then the Building Regulations Office can stop the works on site.
Third, the Building Regulations Office will take a sample of method statements submitted and review them. Initially the sample will be a sizeable one so that the BRO as the enforcing agency will get a good feel of the method statements being prepared. BRO also intends to engage architects on a retainer basis to review those method statements that are more complex. As time goes by and architects and contractors understand better what is expected from them the sample taken by BRO will be smaller.
The BRO can stop works on site if the method statement is inadequate or if the method statement is not being adhered to. For certain infringements there are also fines. These are disincentives against work methodologies that do not provide adequate safeguard for third party property.
The Times suggested editorially (August 10) that the cost of the architect who vets the method statement on behalf of the owners of adjoining properties should be borne by the developer. While appreciating the logic of this suggestion, I am concerned that this would result in an added level of bureaucracy and administrative cost. What action is to be taken if the contractor does not pay for the architect of the third party? Will the precious time of a limited number of enforcement officers be taken up chasing some developer who refuses to pay the architect of the neighbouring properties? I would much rather have the enforcement officers focus fully on problem cases, that is, where the developers are not providing maximum safety to third party properties. Their time would be much better spent.
I am also concerned that asking the developer to pay for the architect representing the neighbours would in effect weaken the neighbours' position. Imagine this: One architect paid for by the developer prepares a method statement and another architect, also paid by the developer, checks it.
Other provisions include the requirement for all construction works, even minor ones, to be covered by an insurance.
Developers will also be required to submit a bank guarantee. Damages not covered by insurance will be made good for from the bank guarantee, subject, of course, to a decision of a court of law or of arbitration.
The developer is required to prepare a condition report of each adjoining property. This describes the condition of each property prior to the commencement of works on site. This report will be drawn up by the developer's architect and made available to the owners of the respective adjoining properties. Although there are many developers who already prepare such condition reports, the new regulations will make this obligatory.
These regulations provide tools to owners of properties adjoining construction sites to defend their interests. These are over and above other legal tools that are already available in the Civil Code.
Regulation by the state is useful and important. Experience shows, however, that it is ultimately up to the individual to defend his interests if and where his rights are being infringed. To do this in the most effective manner, s/he has to engage professional advisors and, yes, unfortunately also incur the relative costs.
As my colleague architect Michael Falzon rightly points out in his opinion piece in The Sunday Times of August 9: "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".
The new regulations will come into force as soon as possible after the Building Regulations Act as the parent law is enacted in Parliament, possibly in October.
The regulations were subject to wide ranging consultation including within the Building Industry Consultative Council. Comments and feedback received are greatly appreciated. Many proposals made by the BICC and by the public were incorporated. I am confident that the new regulations will reduce instances where damages to third party property result.
Mr Pullicino is Minister for Resources and Rural Affairs.