Why was there need for the creation of such an authority? In your opinion, what are some of the key objectives which have to be achieved?
The need and the objectives go hand-in-hand. They are primarily based on getting the four entities (Building Industry Consultative Council (BICC), Building Regulations Office (BRO), Building Regulation Board (BRB), and the Masons Board) together and reviewing the different legislation. The entities are currently spread out and lack resources. Centralising them not only pools all their resources but also provides them with the status of an independent authority with its own board and structure which gives them greater legal power.
It will also create a focal point for information for everyone, be they developers, contractors, or the general public, that will eliminate bureaucracy and simplify the entire process. For example, once I was out walking and noticed that a wall had fallen into the ditch of a construction site. I called a number of entities but no one could offer a solution due to the lack of resources or lack of officers.
The consultation period for the White Paper closes on 15 October, isn't the time a bit limited for such a proposal?
We do not dictate the length of the consultation period; it comes from existing policies established by the Ministry of for European Affairs and Equality, which manages public consultations. Yes, it can be argued that these four weeks aren't enough, but I can say that before this we consulted with a number of stakeholders and met them regularly. We also met PN Spokesperson for Planning Marthese Portelli, and she was quite supportive of the idea.
Personally, I don't think that the consultation is about whether or not we need this authority, but rather to get feedback on the functions and policies we are proposing.
As far as I know, people can make a request for an extension, which I'm not averse to. I just do not want to prolong the process. I was involved with the reform at the Land's Authority and I felt that because the changes took long, the effect of it got lost and initially there were a lot of issues with their implementation.
The Authority will have a wide-ranging role and incorporate a number of entities and legislation. Are there fears that it could become an authority mired by bureaucracy and have some teething issues?
You will always have those fears. However, while the authority is wide-ranging, the four entities are already performing some of these functions. What I think we need to do is extend these powers. For example, at present, we do not have a register for all skills, and we need to know who is an electrician, a plumber, who drives a jigger and so on.
At Land's, I went in the day the law was enacted and came into force, which created havoc. This time, we will not wait for the laws to be enacted before examining the current situation. We are creating a vehicle in the interim, probably an agency, so that we can begin interacting with these departments. We know what we want to do, so we need to start transferring some functions while also examining resources. Ultimately, it will only take a couple of months in Parliament so we need to ensure that the work is progressing.
Enforcement on construction sites is an issue, as noted on the White Paper. Will improved enforcement be guaranteed under the new authority?
Nothing is guaranteed, unfortunately. We agree that there is a lack of enforcement, but this authority will not just function in this role. It is just one area. We should note what the ministry did this year, which was quite positive, by taking the BRO and incorporating the PA's enforcement unit to address the lack of resources.
We do intend to have a proper enforcement unit and ensure that the proper training takes place. There is a question on whether we should reintroduce Building Inspectors. We just use enforcement officers so we don't really have anyone who goes on site to examine whether the right kinds of materials are being used for example. Should we reintroduce it? Probably yes.
Is there any idea on how many enforcement personnel the Authority would require?
No, not yet. Over the next few months, we are going to draw up an Operational and HR plan which will give us a better understanding of what we need.
The document mentions administrative fines that can be issued by the authority. What sort of fines are we talking about, given that the fines are nothing in comparison to the profits made by developers?
Yes, the current fines are irrelevant in terms of the profits generated. The entire structure of the fines being imposed today needs to be reviewed, as the fines are all based on old and out-dated legislation. This is why we are giving the power to the authority to impose fines, as the PA can do.
The focus of the White Paper seems to be the establishment of industry standards. How will this relate to the many buildings that have already been constructed?
It is important to highlight that we will not just be looking at new buildings but also examining older ones. We need to establish certain standards in the industry. For example, the Grenfell Tower in London was refitted about 15 years ago, with the standards of that time. Problems arose not only because of the erosion of standards but because they did not invest in someone to review the building. Personally, I think the whole tragedy could have been avoided.
Obviously, examining all these buildings is a tall order and we also need to see how to enforce regulations regarding older buildings. For example, there are older apartment blocks which have six different owners and do not have any form of condominium agreement. These are issues we need to look into, so we are suggesting the creation of Directorate for Regulations and Policies. It will be a headache, but a necessary one. Ultimately, if you don't start at some point, you will never do anything.
The document also talks about the definition of building parameters; could you elaborate?
What we are suggesting is that, for example, with high-rise buildings, we examine what standards are being used, from the glass to cladding, and so on. At the moment, we still use the British standard, which is not really great considering what happened at Grenfell. We need to either apply EU law here or make sure that we implement legislation that applies directly to Malta.
The Civil Protection Department is also working on legislation regarding safety which will be related to the Authority. Have there been any discussions and will there be any overlap?
At the moment, the CPD has regulations which are just guidelines. What we are proposing is that the Authority uses those guidelines to create robust enforceable legislation, becoming our consultees in a two-way process. I am aware that CPD is drafting legislation and we did discuss this with them. In my opinion, our goal should be to create a central point of information and gather everything into what we call a mother law, which is able to create subsidiary legislation, so, rather than seeing laws spread across different codes, all the regulations are under one simple law.
For the non-legal person, the current system is very difficult to understand. One of the good things about the government lands act is that it gathered together five different pieces of legislation, which makes it much easier, even in the court system.
The Authority is geared to take over the roles of CPD, Commission for the Rights of Persons with Disability, Department of Environmental Health, Occupational Health and Safety Association as the PA's consultee on these matters. Have you spoken to these departments?
We did and we were quite clear. There hasn't been negative feedback from the departments themselves but rather from others. This goes back to the question as to whether we should have one consultee or all these different ones. Should we have all these different laws or should we have one centralised point? Our thinking is that having them in one place makes it much simpler. Obviously, we are open to discussion and are still waiting on official feedback to see what the idea will be moving forward. I do remain of the opinion that the authority should be the focal point for consultation and information.
It can be argued that their perspective and expertise is crucial in planning matters, what is being done to ensure that these areas are adequately heard?
Our idea is that they remain our consultees, rather than being the direct consultee of the PA. We are, in simplistic terms, funnelling all the different roles in one place, so we can get all the departments together, discuss the way forward, and not have conflicting opinions.
Why was the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage not included?
We tried to consult with everyone and we did meet them. We just did not feel as yet that they should be part of the process. Having said that, I personally did have some doubts as to whether to include them or not. The white paper, as I said, is a consultation document, it is something done in a small think tank. There are other points which have been raised that could have been included, but this is the idea behind a white paper.
Construction waste and environmental damage remain to be a key issue. Given that it is so closely tied to the Authority's functions, why was it not included in the White Paper?
Yes, you're right, but waste is currently being handled by ERA and we did not want to go into that subject directly as they already have their policies, so we did not feel the need to include it into the remit of the Authority. The idea is that similar to Land's, the PA, and ERA we intend to have different people on the board representing different functions. For example, with BICC there already exist forums and groups of people coming from different areas of the economy and we intend to enhance this to create one involving PA, ERA, and Infrastructure Malta.
In the last few years we have seen a number of high rise developments approved by the PA, are there any fears that once these regulations are implemented these high rises would no longer be compliant?
The fear is that the whole country would not fit in, not just high-rises! Even someone building a garage could be non-compliant. This is why we have to be careful with the kind of regulations we put in as we need to be sensitive to both property owners and the general public. If there are things that are unacceptable and beyond the rules we put in, then some action will be taken. We don't know what kind at this time as it is very hypothetical.
Personally, I have visited some high-rise developments and I've seen a lot of professionalism. Completely setting aside any controversies that have to do with the projects, the buildings are being constructed in a very professional manner.
Ultimately it is clear that the construction industry actually wants this authority. They want it primarily because there is a dividing line in the industry between those who are professional and do things properly and the cowboys. The industry wants the authority to eliminate any doubt that they are functioning illegally, while on the other hand we also have to protect the general public, the environment, and make sure that the buildings we have are safe and long-lasting.
from The Malta Independent https://ift.tt/2zGMIBF
via
IFTTT
