Last Tuesday a number of environmental NGOs held a press conference in which they questioned and vehemently condemned the much-touted proposal for a Mepa amnesty regarding planning infringements that took place before 2013.
The righteous indignation with which these NGOs insisted that “amnesty rewards those who abused the system and stole what belongs to the public” belies the assumption that the proposed amnesty will be a general pardon that covers any existing illegality, whatever it is. This assumption, however, is based on hearsay as there is nothing official that indicates the sort of infringements that will be the subject of the amnesty.
If the amnesty will pardon any past infringement, breach or illegality, whatever it may be, I would obviously understand this indignation and even feel the same about it. But is this the case?
There is no doubt that there are a number of buildings with infringements that cannot be sanctioned under the present prevalent sanitary laws and regulations and planning policies. Most of these infringements took place in the past before the need of a compliance certificate for the provision of water and electricity service was introduced.
People have been using and living in these buildings for donkey’s years, generally unaware of the existence of the infringement. Then, when they decide to sell their property and the potential buyer applies for a bank loan to finance the purchase of the property, the issue of the infringement crops up. Nowadays banks are more conscious of problems in loans for purchase of property and want to ensure that the properties that are the only security for the loan are actually legally built.
Every week I meet someone who is faced with this quandary. I am referring to such infringements as an internal courtyard in a block of flats being narrower than that allowed by sanitary regulations or a villa covering an area that is slightly bigger than the percentage coverage allowed or with some part of the side curtilage narrower than permissible.
Both the sanitary law and the villa zoning conditions predate the Planning Authority (subsequently Mepa) by quite a number of years and these infringements were not the result of some Mepa failing. Rather they are the consequence of a mentality that believes that rules are there to be broken, with individuals getting some sort of warped satisfaction knowing that they ‘took’ more than the law allowed.
Considering all infringements as equal by sticking to the fundamentalist instinct flaunted by many environmentalists does not solve problems
Today this is hardly possible anymore – not because of any discernible change in mentality but because of the compliance certificate requirement. It is in such cases where an amnesty makes sense.
The previous administration had – practically on the eve of the election – introduced a ‘concession’ that applied to some of these cases. Yet this concession is not tantamount to a legally foolproof amnesty, and understandably, some banks have been advised to consider buildings where this concession was applied as still having an infringement that has not been sanctioned.
An amnesty to cover such infringements is certainly called for in the present situation.
It is indeed ironic that the same environmental NGOs that are always raising their hackles about the stock of vacant residential units do not realise that such an amnesty would, in fact, help to make some of these units saleable and usable.
These are cases where the people who are asking for the amnesty are private citizens, most of whom had unwittingly bought their residence without being conscious of this sort irregularity in their property. Indeed, many who had obtained a bank loan to purchase their home are finding out that potential buyers cannot get a bank loan to purchase that same house, now that bank policies have become stricter.
Contrary to what the environmental NGOs are suspecting, the pressure for this amnesty is not being made by established developers but by individuals who are facing the sort of problems that I have mentioned. And the pressure, in this case, is being made by individuals on the government, more than on Mepa.
Moreover, giving such an amnesty will also help to make Mepa’s enforcement efforts more efficient as they would be able to concentrate on the more serious breaches.
Having put forward the case for the amnesty, I feel I also ought to register my personal opinion on some of the instances where the amnesty should not apply.
While it should apply to buildings that were not built in strict conformity with an issued permit, it should not apply when the whole building was built without a permit. It should not apply to extra unauthorised floors built over permitted buildings, nor to residential units that have been ‘created’ by the infringement, such as splitting a flat into two without the necessary permit.
Unfortunately, many tend to look at things as either white or black. An infringement in a building could range from a displacement of a wall by a few centimetres to an unpermitted house built outside the development zone.
Considering all infringements as equal by sticking to the fundamentalist instinct flaunted by many environmentalists does not solve problems. It only complicates matters.
micfal@maltanet.net