MaltaToday previous editions

4 NEWS maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 26 JUNE 2019 YANNICK PACE RESIDENTS worried about risks to their property from an adjacent building site will still have to pay an architect to file an objection or risk being ig- nored. Under the new rules that came into force yesterday, residents concerned about damage from construction work will have to engage an architect to assess the risks and present a detailed report to the Building Regulations Office. The new regulations amend the legal notice on the avoid- ance of damage to third party property, introducing new ob- ligations on project architects. But the rules appear to have fallen short in addressing third party concerns in a more effective manner since they will still have to shoulder the cost of the architect engaged to file a now, more detailed objection. The rules were drawn up hastily in the wake of a third building that collapsed in two months, as a result of adjacent construction work. The public outcry prompted the govern- ment to temporarily suspend excavation and demolition work. The rules require architects in charge of a project to sub- mit a more detailed method statement of works to be done on a site. The method state- ment has to be more detailed than was previously required and must include a condition report analysing any potential risks to the surrounding area. The documentation will have to be made public through the Planning Authority website at least two weeks before works on the site begin. During this period, any inter- ested third party may ask the Building Regulations Office (BRO) to review the method statement "provided that the third party submits a detailed report drawn up by an archi- tect, indicating the technical reasons which may be of con- cern to [their] safety". Infrastructure Minister Ian Borg said on Monday, during a press conference that the new regulations wanted to ensure that it is always clear were responsibility for deci- sions taken on construction sites lies. Borg confirmed that there would be no regulatory entity approving method statements itself before any objection is filed. "If you have difficulty un- derstanding it then you will have to look around and see who can help you [interpret it]," Borg said when it was pointed out that residents would need to seek, and pay for, professional help to in- terpret the more complicated method statements now being required. In the eventuality of a disa- greement between the de- veloper's architect and that engaged by a third party, re- garding aspects of the method statement or the condition report, a third architect, this time acting on behalf of the BRO will have to issue a fi- nal report, with costs being shared between the developer and the objecting party. During Monday's press con- ference, the minister said that the new legal notice was only a part of the government's plans to reform the sector, empha- sising that a new authority will be set up in the coming weeks that will be consolidating the functions of multiple smaller entities currently regulating the industry. Asked whether this new au- thority would be acting as a regulator which can approve or reject method statements and other documentation re- lated to a property, a ministry spokesperson quoted the le- gal notice said that "technical persons are consolidating all related legislation and proce- dures" and that "more infor- mation would be available in due course". New rules will not solve any problems Chamber of Architects vice president Andre Pizzuto said the council was still analysing the legal notice. He noted that the chamber was never consulted and was only provided with a copy of the regulations "along with everyone else". Pizzuto would not be drawn into whether a regulator should approve method state- ments submitted by archi- tects, adding that the chamber would be issuing a detailed response to the new rules as soon as possible, but he point- ed out that even with respect to determining responsibility, the new regulations were not clear. "So, you have an architect who is drawing up a method statement, an architect who is the Site Technical Officer and is responsible for implement- ing it, potentially an architect representing a third party and an architect acting on behalf of the BRO," Pizzuto said. "If the BRO has the authority to change the method state- ment who carries responsibil- ity for that?" Pizzuto was adamant that architects could not be made responsible for the implemen- tation of their own design. He pointed to the Civil Code, which states that both the ar- chitect and the contractor are liable for defects in the con- struction. Requiring site managers to be architects, Pizzuto said, implied that contractors were not able to understand draw- ings, and that the contractor and builder were "incompe- tent to the extent that they needed to appoint an architect to hold their hand while they are doing their work". "It definitely shouldn't be the architect to carry responsibil- ity for this lack of regulation because it is the government's role to regulate the industry," he said. "The government has responsibilities too. So far, we have pointed fingers at the ar- chitect and the contractor. It is the government that must regulate." Residents get the expensive end of the stick with new building rules The rules appear to have fallen short in addressing third party concerns in a more effective manner since they will still have to shoulder the cost of the architect engaged to file a now, more detailed objection

• Cover