Andrè Zammit’s ‘Amnesty: victims or villains?’ (February 19) encouraged me to put pen to paper. I enjoyed reading those snippets about the evolution of our planning system which, to my mind, has always been excessively centred round sanitary issues to the detriment of the overall architectural solution. What Zammit writes confirms that when we had less regulation we had better architecture.

My contribution to the current debate is simple: scrap this heap of old sanitary regulations and replace them by a set of best practice yardsticks. Immediately we do this we would have moved so much nearer to solving the never-ending enforcement problems. Prospective buyers would then approach their architect with a very different mindset.

Instead of playing detective and going through the present charade of ‘notifications’ and/or ‘concessions’, the architect will be able to give advice on the merits or otherwise of the premises in question.

The depth of the backyard becomes an architectural feature and so will the floor to ceiling height. If the depth of the backyard, or internal shaft, is ridiculously small or the ceiling height is oppressively low, the architect will note these facts in his/her report and the buyer will deal with the seller accordingly. The issue is now a purely commercial one: given these highlighted peculiarities, what is the premises worth?

As things stand, architects and civil engineers are not trusted to advise clients whether the backyard size is adequate or not; they can only check whether it meets regulations.

That these statutory dimensions are not sacrosanct has been proven by the regulators themselves when ‘concessions’ were introduced. This concession system allows you to go beyond the immediate hurdle at a relatively small cost but it does not put a real price tag on the infringement or the unfortunate lapse of the stone mason all those years ago. The real cost would come about if the building/apartment is put on the market as is, warts and all.

The more comprehensively efficient a building is the more cost effective it will be

Allowing the market forces to work would encourage the developer, speculative or not, to take heed of his architect when it comes to balance design, cost outlay and financial return.

Overdevelopment of a site can still be possible with the building regulations and the Mepa design guidelines we have today.

The more comprehensively efficient a building is the more cost effective it will be.

Sanitary and privacy considerations will become important components of the overall design, best left in the hands of the architect. It would be clear to all that moving away from best practice yardsticks would come at a cost.

There is another issue: why, in this day and age, do I have to tell a regulator how I intend to use the internal areas of my dwelling? Would it not be enough to be given a permit for residential use? Again, as long as the dwelling conforms to certain obvious parameters, why do I need to tell anyone of the internal disposition of the rooms?

Of course, as things stand, the bother to the owner increases exponentially if s/he decides to sell. Why not leave it to the market to determine the selling price vis-a-vis the room layout?

Mepa would be free to pursue those who have blatantly flouted the Development Plan, causing major breaches. It would rid itself of compliances, concessions, most development notices and silly sanctioning permits.

I remember the time before Mepa was born when there was much talk of simplifying the whole planning process. It is about time we started talking again.

Joseph Sapienza is an architect in private practice.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.