Paul Miruzzi, director general of the Government Property Division, in his letter of December 5 (Soul Of Xagħra Village Now A Safer Place) states that the placing of furniture beyond delineated boundaries led to a pedestrian suffering injury from a car as she was unable to use the pavement.

It is clearly unacceptable for business establishments to block thoroughfares whether for pedestrians or vehicles. Health and safety should be paramount and offending blockages removed.

It is a pity that this principle is not more widely accepted and enforced. In Victoria, for example, the narrowest pavements are blocked by statue bases and flag poles for some weeks prior to and during festas. I wonder why his Division seems not to find it necessary to ensure pedestrian safety in this case.

Be that as it may, there are establishments which have permits to place furniture on government land which do not block pavements or roads. Some of these restaurants and bars have erected awnings to allow them to provide a comfortable and secure venue for both tourists and locals.

Such structures protect from inclement weather in a way which is impossible with umbrellas. They are dry and can be heated in the colder months yet opened up when the better weather returns. Many of them are visually quite pleasing and enhance their surroundings. However, in recent weeks these establishments have been told to remove such awnings and replace them with umbrellas.

Often establishments are too small to be able to offer an adequate service throughout the year without these awnings. They may, therefore, have to close except for, perhaps, the summer months.

This outcome is hardly of benefit to customers and, moreover, is unlikely to attract tourists in the shoulder and winter months. Common sense suggests that it would be of benefit to allow these establishments - which, I emphasise, do not have illegally placed street furniture - to erect some form of protection which is more robust and protective than umbrellas.

It is not clear from Mr Miruzzi's letter whether it is the wording of the encroachment permits which does not allow fixed structures or whether it is the law under which these permits are issued. If it is the former a simple change of policy would allow the wording of permits to be changed where the safety of pedestrians is not an issue.

Indeed the authorities already seem to have some discretion since a Marsalforn hotel which has an offending and very permanent structure has reportedly been given the required permit recently.

If I am wrong, and it is the enabling law which does not permit such structures, the law could be suitably amended. Perhaps some definition of "semi-permanent" structures (fixed but relatively easily dismantled with minimal damage to public property) could be of help here.

This might attract cross-party support as both parties in Parliament claim to subscribe to the need to promote SMEs and tourism.

The present policy of blanket refusal - unless, that is, you are a major businessman - is neither business friendly nor conducive to the promotion of tourism. Surely common sense and compromise need to prevail.