Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1137604
16 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 30 JUNE 2019 INTERVIEW You are an architect with your own private practice; at the same time, you are also a government consultant who helps draw up legislation regulating the architecture profession. Do you see this as a conflict of interest? As a government consultant, my job is merely to give advice. In all parts of the professional sphere, you will find profes- sionals whose job is also to offer advice. It is a state of fact that legislators rely on advice from professionals in the fields that they regulate. It happens in the financial sector; in maritime law… it is not something out of this world. I think it is natural and normal for anyone who can contribute, because of his or her experience in the field, to offer that type of advice. For instance, right now, new planning policy regulations are being drawn up. I am not in- volved in it, myself. But other professionals, who have an in- terest in the sector, are involved. And rightly so. Because if we want to have good, effective planning policies, I would say we need the input of experi- enced people who have knowl- edge of the sector. Another example: many members of par- liament are lawyers. They draw up legislation themselves. They are not advisors; they actually write the laws that regulate their own profession. Is that a conflict of interest, too? I don't think so. I think lawyers have a very valid contribution to make, when drawing up legislation… You say you're just an 'advisor', but didn't you also contribute directly to the writing of the new regulations? Yes, of course I did…. So you're effectively also a legislator yourself… But only in an advisory capac- ity. At the end of the day, it's not me who takes the decisions. I suggest how to write the regula- tions, but it is up to the legisla- tors to decide… What makes it a possible conflict is that you might be benefitting from the resulting legislation. Between 2008 and 2016, you secured 55 ODZ permits for your clients, after changes to the ODZ rules that you reportedly helped to draw up… That is something your news- paper reported [in 2017], but the truth is that I was not in- volved in drawing up any new ODZ regulations. To this day, people still think I had an input into those regulations… if not that I actually wrote them my- self… but it's not true at all. Not only did I not write any ODZ regulations… but those regula- tions are now being revised, and once again I have nothing to do with it at all. I am not a planner. My competence is in law, not in planning. When it comes to planning polices… it is simply not my field. Let's turn to the new regulations. According to these rules, if someone is concerned about excavations or construction next door, they can engage an architect for a second opinion regarding the building permit. But the concerned resident (who could be a pensioner living off €500 a month) would have to pay for that service. Isn't this a case of social injustice? You have to see things in the context of what there was be- fore. Until last week, the situ- ation was that you could wake up any day of the week and find a bulldozer excavating a plot next door. What could you do? Before the new regulations, the developer in question was sup- posed to engage an architect to prepare a 'method statement'. But that was it: the law only said 'method statement'. Noth- ing more, nothing less. It was up to the architects to interpret it any way they choose. Subse- quently, the developer also had to appoint a 'site manager' to oversee the works. But again, there was no specification. The site manager could have been literally anyone…. with all due respect, even people who know nothing about architecture or construction. And the job of the site manager is to interpret complex planning permits, and ensure that the conditions were respected. It requires certain ex- pertise. That was the situation, under the previous regulations. What is different today? The method statement still has to be drawn up... with the differ- ence that we introduced a very detailed schedule on how that statement had to be prepared. Where before, it could just be a cut-and-paste job… for exam- ple, just use a trencher to cut a trench between the two plots, so that the adjacent building is not affected by vibrations. But what if there was a [geological] fault that was invisible? None of that was addressed in the old regulations. But the new rules outline a very clear, detailed strategy of what needs to be done. The architect who is go- ing to authorise the excavation, is now required to go through all these 13 points [indicating copy of law]. An architect who au- thorises additional floors, on a building built in the 1960s – be- fore I was even born – now has to do all these additional checks. Until last Monday, all this was arbitrary. Now, there are clear procedures to be followed… and unlike before, when the method statement was very difficult to access… it is now online. The neighbour can gain access just by going online… All well and good, but it doesn't answer my question. Once citizens access the method statement… what can they actually do to challenge it? Do they have to pay hefty architectural fees, just to ensure that their own house doesn't collapse? Whether we like it or not, this is a technical document. So when you have an issue of a technical/legal nature – for ar- gument's sake, you're involved in (God forbid) a car crash, and it's not your fault… sooner or later, you will have to seek tech- nical/legal advice. And yes, it will have to be paid for… But developers and contractors make millions out of the construction sector, while the victims of their abuses are rarely able to afford expensive professional services. Where's the social justice in that? You are very correct to say that. It's a very fair comment. But at least, today the citizen does have access to recourses in such cases... At an exorbitant, prohibitive cost… Perhaps, but what do you pro- pose as an alternative? That, for instance, it should be the developer to pay for the second opinion… seeing as how it is the developers' actions, at the end of the day, that place other people at risk… Fair enough, it is something that could be considered. Bear in mind, however, that I'm not a politician. I don't legislate, my- Architect and government consultant ROBERT MUSUMECI defends the new construction site management regulations from external criticism, on the grounds that they provide a much-needed framework for effective enforcement Prevention is better than collapse PHOTOGRAPHY BY JAMES BIANCHI Raphael Vassallo Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt