From Mr A. Camilleri

The Minister of Rural Affairs and the Environment has finally unveiled his long-awaited construction site management regulations, which, he says, will afford adjacent areas to construction sites the highest degree of protection; for which we are thankful.

He also said, however, that third party issues will be dealt with by the Civil Court. In my opinion, this means that if an honest citizen and his family, living in a house adjacent to a demolition/construction site, were to suffer any injuries (even death) and/or damage (extensive or not) to their home, their only remedy would be to go to court, which might take ages and which a well-known barrister estimates would initially cost the victimized complainant as much as an unaffordable Lm875. Is this the “highest degree of protection” the minister promised?

But there is an obviously glaring snag here. Unfortunately, the minister has manifestly shown that he does not view with equanimity the saying that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As part of these regulations, the minister has rightly decreed that developers have to deposit a bank guarantee with MEPA to pay for any damage to pavements and street furniture, which will be administered by MEPA. There is absolutely nothing in these regulations that obliges developers to pay, through a similar bank guarantee to MEPA, for any damages to adjacent homes in urban demolition/reconstruction sites. Isn’t it bewildering that the minister took great care of broken pavements but totally ignored the probable damage to adjacent homes? Is this really the “highest degree of protection” the minister meant? How fair can one get?

In view of the above, therefore, it is proposed that our well-intentioned minister doubles or trebles the mandatory bank guarantee by all developers so that MEPA can also pay for any probable damages to adjacent homes and not only for broken pavements and street furniture.

Albert Camilleri

SLIEMA