The enforcement system in use to bring catering establishments abusing their encroachment permits in line is “fragmented, unwieldy, and incapable of providing an immediate and effective response to complaints”, Environment Commissioner David Pace says.
Mr Pace recommends that the monitoring and enforcement of encroachment permits should be carried out by local councils rather than have a number of entities overlapping each other.
He suggests that local councils should be given the authority to carry out spot checks even late at night and prosecute for contraventions in local tribunals.
Complaints can be handled through a hotline available not just during office hours.
Mr Pace, who looked into the matter after receiving a complaint in August last year about chairs and tables on pavements, notes that, while licences allowing such practice generate economic activity, blocking access to pedestrians could put elderly people and parents with young children especially at risk.
At present, clearance for issuing a permit to place tables and chairs in public space falls within the remit of the Government Property Division, Mepa, Transport Malta and the Malta Tourism Authority.
Problems start to arise during monitoring because “at present, the police are responsible for the removal of chairs and tables outside the encroachment area since they would constitute an obstruction to a public passage”.
This issue is a matter local councils should be very closely involved in
Mr Pace said that local councils seem to be the least involved authority when, in reality, “this issue is a matter they should be very closely involved in”. The report also refers to “some interesting replies” the commissioner got from the authorities involved.
On one hand, the MTA gave a very comprehensive reply saying that any breach of the Malta Tourism Act is forwarded to the police. However things get complicated as the procedure can only be applied when tables and chairs are not licensed. Cases involving licensed chairs or tables placed outside the authorised area are “fertile ground for much legal wrangling in court”.
On its part, Mepa said that complaints are tackled by the property division and the MTA. The planning authority said it participates according to an “administratively agreed” procedure, presumably through its enforcement section.
The Government Property Division, a very important stakeholder in this matter, did not reply to his questions, Mr Pace said.
He also said that taking the contravener to court would be time-consuming, whereas issuing an enforcement notice would be quicker but still involves a relatively lengthy process.
The solution lies in having a rapid response system on the ground, with spot checks and on-the-spot fines. The report also suggests the suspension or withdrawal of licences for repeated offenders.
There would be a right of appeal to a tribunal.
Mr Pace stresses that for the system to succeed the encroachment area needs to be permanently marked, with metal markers, as paint can easily be tampered with.
He questions the decision to discontinue the use of such markers “on health and safety grounds” describing this as “very mysterious”.
He reports that he is not aware of a single incident in which people were injured at the Valletta monti, where such markers were in use.
In his opinion, enforcement of encroachment permits can be carried out by local wardens as part of their normal duties. Those found to be in contravention would have to reapply for a permit.
Local councils should retain a copy of the Mepa and MTA permits for public scrutiny.
Though the present procedure of issuing licences should be maintained, the report suggests a bigger involvement by local councils when Mepa is processing applications. Renewal of licences would become the responsibility of local councils, which would pass any fees collected to the MTA while retaining an administrative charge.
Mr Pace says that such a system would go a long way to enhance surveillance and ensure that operators stick to their licence conditions.