Don’t go to the polls!

I refer to the article Mockery Made Of Public Consultation (February 6), complaining about the tiny A4 page size sign, 300 metres away, announcing the Midi Tigné extension project. (Going to the polls would prove that the residents are happy with this attitude!)

I was born in Sliema, Stella Maris parish, when Sliema was Tas-Sliema, implying the meaning “peaceful town”. Today, the town has been transformed into a concrete jungle with the blessing of both sides of the House.

It may be of interest to the Sliema Residents’ Association to learn that, recently, the law has been changed – although my advice is to consult a lawyer on this. The owner of a building site or, rather, the land is no longer obliged by law to see to it that such an A4 sign is displayed 24/7 for three weeks prior to the commencement of such a site development. My impression is that such a change in the building rules/laws occurred since Lawrence Gonzi took over the Malta Environment and Planning Authority – surely not on his instructions. God forbid!

It is to be noted that Sliema roads are, in their majority, narrow. This shows that they were not meant to complement high-rise buildings, dwarfing the modest houses at the upper streets of the town in the process. Sliema has literally been robbed from the hands of the Slimiżi. Their opinion doesn’t count. In fact, they are being treated like dirt.

It would also be of interest to the residents – and a matter for the Police Commissioner and his force – to investigate the backyards of these high-rise buildings to make sure they are in conformity with the sanitary and building laws regarding their size. I shall refer without ambiguity to the distance between the back wall of the proposed building and the party wall as the depth of the backyard.

The party wall is, in this case, the common wall that separates the owner proposing the development from the property of the back-to-back neighbour. It is to be noted that the law does not distinguish between different types of buildings so that the only shelter exempt from this definition would be a kiosk.

The word in the law is “house”. Thus, a house is to have a backyard that has a depth that is equal to or exceeds half the height of the house with the minimum depth being three metres (formerly 10 feet) even for a one-storey house. For example, a 42-metre house is to have a 21 metre-deep backyard. A special proviso in the law allows this 21 metre depth to be reduced to two-thirds of this amount that is, to 14 metres. The back-to-back neighbour can, of course, on being consulted beforehand, object to the reduction.

In my opinion these rules/laws are not being followed. I would advise Sliema residents of whichever political colour or hue to remain at home without bothering to cast their vote on poll day. Their vote will not make a difference to the Sliema resident. It would, in a short spell of time, make a difference to the man who owns the large crane and the party (or parties!) being partly financed from the final price. Why should the residents aim to fatten the building contractor’s bank account? What’s in it for the residents except a dwarfing of their property and the deprivation of sunshine?

By the way, should any reader wish to object to his back-to-back neighbour’s yard being too small he has to criminally sue the owner, architect and builder. Short of that, the reader would lose the case!