The ongoing debate on high-rise buildings has a number of facets and raises very valid points. The ill-effects on people’s lifestyle and quality of life feature high on the list of objectors.

Sliema residents who live close to the Townsquare project site in Tigné say they are more concerned with the initial construction phase than the long-term impact of the development. What some of them are really dreading is the incessant construction work once the project gets under way.

Indeed, readers complaining about such inconveniences write letters to the press practically every day. The causes are many and varied. Efforts have been made by regulators to knock some sense into the industry, including in terms of health and safety for workers, residents and passers-by alike. However, the inconvenience persists and the term is used for want of a word that better describes the hell such residents have to go through for long months on end.

There are some who would argue that, like in a dockyard, to mention just one example, operations at a building site are in themselves dangerous, unhealthy and noisy. On the other hand, there are quarters who would insist that the manner in which an industry operates should not be tolerated simply because of the turnover or the contribution it makes to the GDP.

The construction industry’s direct contribution to the national economy amounts to about four per cent, according to figures released by the National Statistics Office. Another four per cent are estimated to be contributed in an indirect manner, apart from the income-multiplier effect, in the form of profits and wages earned by construction operators being dedicated to general expenditure.

So one has to acknowledge that the construction industry does play a significant role in Malta’s wealth generation and distribution. But it is also true that most of the time this comes at a heavy cost in terms of the disruptions to thousands of peoples’ lives. Which means that while the construction industry does make people richer, it also makes our quality of life poorer. Of course, the solution is not a moratorium on the construction industry, rather, it is all about managing building sites in a way that they cause minimal discomfort to human lives. One aspect that needs to be addressed soonest is noise pollution.

Should the noise generated by construction sites form part of impact assessment reports? Do planned efforts to control such noise usually form an integral part of a planning application and a condition for approval?

Noise pollution causes distress. Apart from physical pain and discomfort, the World Health Organisation lists other psychological effects of noise pollution. It is time to have a law that clearly defines noise pollution. More importantly, it should provide for harsh penalties, provided, of course, it is enforced.

There is also need for a body that is responsible for controlling noise pollution, rather than a fragmented enforcement effort. Everybody’s business is nobody’s business and passing the buck is quite a popular game in this country.

The fragmented effort that prevails has led Magistrate Ian Farrugia to make a strongly-worded declaration in a case filed against the operators of various Paceville establishments last July. He noted that the authorities were dumping the responsibility to control noise pollution on the courts rather than taking action themselves.

The message is crystal clear.

Only those unwilling to listen will not be bothered.