I am writing to your paper to express publicly my disgust at the way Mepa, the faceless authority set up by the Nationalist administration, handles building permits.

Permit No. PA/07683/06 was issued to developers for the building of apartments in Pace Street, Sliema, on a plot that backs onto our back yards. The original permit was for the apartments to have two closed shafts on the dividing back wall. The developers went on to build in breach of the permit, in that the two shafts, as seen in the photos, have been left uncovered, with a window on each floor touching the dividing wall and the other window, also on each floor, at its furthest width being at a distance of only 63 centimetres from the dividing wall.

We have been advised by at least three architects, a lawyer and some other people in the know – as they are in the construction business – that this is illegal and such shafts, in conformity with building regulations, should be closed by the developers unless they are situated at least 76cm from the party wall. In fact, article 443(1) of Chapter 16 (the Civil Code) of the laws of Malta stipulates that no windows can be constructed less than 76 cm from the dividing wall. We reported the matter to the enforcement division of Mepa and expected that officials would stop the work until the developers complied with the permit and relevant legislation. However, no enforcement officers ever made an appearance and – surprise, surprise – three weeks later, a Mepa official called us to advise that the developers had, in the meantime, been granted a special concession, (this was the second one, the first one being to build on a dividing wall separating the adjacent yards as the plot was considered to be too small). And to quote their architect (letter in hand): “There are no apertures in the dividing wall between the two properties. There is, in fact, a shaft abutting on to this party wall as approved by Mepa by virtue of a minor amendment to approved drawings of PA/07683/06”.

So this means that Mepa, without ever having sent an enforcement officer to stop work until the developers comply with the conditions stipulated in the permit and the Civil Code, as we believe should be the norm, allowed work to be carried on in breach of the permit. We also understand that Mepa subsequently authorised, by way of special concession, what is considered illegal: if the special concession falls foul of the Civil Code, then that special concession may only be classified as an illegality. Because of this “minor concession”, our yards are now very easily accessible from their garage and common stairwell. However, the said Mepa official went on to inform us that we could always apply to build a wall to cover the shafts at our expense. How nice! How generous! So third parties badly affected by Mepa’s unorthodox decisions have to submit an application, with all the hazards involved, to build what should have been built by the other party according to the original permit and relevant legislation and which was surreptitiously amended. Needless to say, we strongly believe that we would never be granted the permit for obvious reasons!

To add insult to injury, when construction work commenced, the developers broke into our back yards with their diggers, dug up our yards and when we confronted them for having trespassed and destroyed and removed pots, plants and various other items on our property, they had the arrogance to tell us not to make a fuss, as after all, we only had rubbish and they had done us a favour in removing it. One of the notorious cowboy developers went on to brag that we could not stop them as they are millionaires, own half of Gzira and that he was so capable he could fill the place with blasphemy and obscenities (kapaci nimla’ hawn bid-dagha u kliem oxxen).

In view of the above, I expect Prime Minister Dr Gonzi, who is responsible for Mepa, to investigate what is going on at the Authority. To us, it seems that some people, for some odd reason, are above the law and Mepa, or some of its officials, instead of curbing abuse, is aiding and abetting the perpetrators. It is then up to third parties badly affected by such anomalies – and generally this is the little people – who have to seek redress in court in long, drawn out, never-ending, time-consuming and expensive court cases.

It is common knowledge that in Malta, bullies and wrongdoers knowingly flout the law and then dare you to take them to court. This, in our view, is exactly what Mepa seems to be doing.

Joan De Maria

SLIEMA