I would like to refer to the draft law announced by Minister for Resources and Rural Affairs George Pullicino regarding regulations on the avoidance of Damage to Third Party Property.

In my opinion, a lot of aggravation will surely be avoided should the following measures be adopted.

1. In my opinion, the three parties that could and should avoid such unnecessary inconvenience to third parties are the architect in charge of the development; the contractor responsible for the work and, last but not least, the project manager appointed by the client and/or the contractor.

2. The developer should not be brought into the situation at this stage. When a developer appoints an architect, it is not just to apply for a building permit but to make sure that the work is carried out in compliance with laws and regulations.

Project managers when appointed by the developer should be authorized to manage the project from the initial stages up to the handing over, or at least up to when all construction work is completed and the building rendered waterproof.

3. Contractors should be obliged to provide a method statement, to be approved by the architect in charge, indicating all the health and safety measures to be adopted. While demolition works are in progress and also especially during the construction

period, unless the method statement is approved by the architect in charge and/or the appointed project manager, “work on the site should not be allowed to commence”.

4. When it comes to competitive tendering, whether in the public or the private sector, the department and/or the architect in charge, together with the developer, should not necessarily award a tender to the cheapest bidder. The track record of a building and civil engineering contractor should be given priority over the price.

In the absence of a classification of contractors, which has been long awaited, the so-called cowboys in the construction industry should be eliminated altogether and the department involved and/or the developer should carefully take note of all remarks in the adjudication report.

5. Architects should insist with the respective department and/or developers that all tenders issued in the construction field should have a section of the Bill of Quantities under the heading preliminaries, which should be priced by the respective contractor to allow for:

a) The provision of a contractor’s All Risk Insurance Cover

b) For the appointment of an independent health and safety officer to be involved, especially during the demolition stage and preferably also during construction, to carry out “risk assessments” and also make sure that all health and safety requirements on building sites are being adhered to, failing which, work on the site would have to be stopped until remedial actions by the respective contractor are implemented.

c) For the appointment of a competent and independent architect/civil engineer to carry out a condition report of all adjoining property before any work is taken in hand. Project managers appointed by the client should then make sure that the contractor continuously abides by health and safety regulations and method statements.

d) The contractor submitting a tender should also make an allowance in his bid to take every precaution to ensure the safety of the public.

It is evident that some of the contractors still think that once they provide their employees with a hardhat and safety shoes, they are fully complying with health and safety regulations, which is far from being the case.

It would be interesting to know whether all the tower cranes one sees all over the island are in fact being continuously serviced by the owner, or the company that hires same are tested by an independent body. For one to drive a car, one needs a licence after having successfully passed a driving test. For one to drive heavy machinery, one needs a special licence. Why shouldn’t tower crane operators take a test and issued with a licence to operate this “very dangerous toy”, which can be very hazardous if not handled properly.

The same procedure should be followed when scaffolding has to be incorporated in a building site. In other countries, scaffolding is only erected by companies specialized and licensed to do so.

Unless an erected scaffolding is certified by a competent and recognized independent body, the contractor responsible should not be allowed to make use of same, failing which the building permit should be withdrawn until such time that the scaffolding is certified safe for use.

If one had to drive around the island, one would easily notice that erected buildings do not cater for fall protection. More often than not, a building contractor is awarded a contract to construct a structure in shell form and on completion he removes the very limited fall protection he would have put in place.

When the developer commissions other contractors to finish off the structure, none of these bother to put up the required protection.

Therefore, in my opinion, the building contractor should be made to allow, in his bid, for all the necessary fall protection to be left on site until work on balconies, lift shafts, stairwells and roofs is completed. The last contractor to leave the site should then be paid to remove all.

On many occasions, the contractor is also the developer and this is when the real problem starts.

George Xuereb

ST JULIAN’S