The Parliamentary Secretary for Active Ageing and Persons with Disability, Anthony Agius Decelis, said that the important thing is that, “at the end of the day, everybody is compliant” to the proper accessibility standards.
Decelis replying to questions by The Malta Independent after the Commission for the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) said, in its annual report, that it had rejected 70% of the applications for a compliance certificate, which states that a building is in line with accessibility guidelines.
All public buildings and government housing units must be compliant with the guidelines, as do buildings which are to be converted into boutique hotels, restaurants or similar establishments. Private buildings that contain more than 30 units meanwhile must also be compliant with these same guidelines.
The CRPD’s Annual Report for the past year shows that out of 2,506 applications for the compliance certificate, only 752 were recommended for approval.
Asked why he thought the rejection rate was so high, Agius Decelis said that he had not conducted any research on the subject, but he explained that it was not the remit of his secretariat to see why a building is not compliant, but rather it is to see that the permits that are granted are all compliant.
As a result, he said, he is “full-square” with the CRPD as he feels that they are doing their job in a proper and professional manner.
In comments to this newspaper last week, CRPD chairman Oliver Scicluna said there may be different reasons behind the high rejection rate. He said that architects might be taking accessibility for granted, but he also had suspicions that the high rejection rate may be down to a “money-making process,” as additional fees could be charged to amend the original plans.
Right of reply
The Chamber of Architects, which was last week given the opportunity to comment but did not, yesterday sent the following right of reply:
“Reference is made to the article carried in The Malta Independent Online on 16thJuly 2018 titled “70% of applications for accessibility compliance certificates rejected by the CRPD”. The Kamra tal-Periti would like to inform your readers that the statement made by the CRPD Chair, Mr Oliver Scicluna, about the role of Periti in this statistic, is not only unfounded speculation, but highly defamatory to its members, and that we demand that it is withdrawn entirely. If Mr Scicluna has any evidence of instances where a Perit has deliberately not fulfilled the Commission’s requirements to be able to charge more to change plans, he is requested to notify the Kamra about them, so it may immediately open Professional Conduct cases, as is its remit at Law.
It is pertinent to point out that in most instances, the role of the Perit ends on the completion of construction works and is thus not consulted or aware of what happens during the finishing stages, when most of the compliance failures occur. These may include failure to install the appropriate fixtures and fittings in bathrooms earmarked for disabled access, or the failure to install the appropriate platform lifts. As your readers will surely appreciate, Periti have no say on decisions made after the professional services agreed to with their clients are completed. It is only after the finishing works are terminated that issues of compliance with CRPD requirements are notified to the Perit, who is brought back in the project to rectify the mistakes carried out in his/her absence in the final stages of the project, by either amending planning permits at the request of clients or mediating on their behalf with the CRPD.
This is indeed one of the reasons why building regulations such as accessibility should be taken out of the planning process and consolidated under the Building Regulation Office.
Nevertheless, the Kamra remains open to further discussions with the CRPD on the matter.”