Regulating the building industry

Regulating the building industry requires the political will to act in an industry that has repeatedly opposed and defied regulation. Last week’s fatal accident at St Ignatius Junction Sliema is the latest incident in an industry in which regulation is still opposed. The political will to regulate is lacking, notwithstanding all the government theatrics, day in day out.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has submitted his resignation on Tuesday. This will lead to the appointment of a third CEO in as many years. This is a resignation that has been submitted out of frustration, even though the resignation letter has not been published.

This resignation followed the comments of Robert Abela, Prime Minister, who on Sunday, a few hours after the incident acknowledged that the authorities regulating the building industry do not have sufficient resources to carry out their responsibilities and regulate the industry. However, he failed to state or acknowledge that those whom his government appointed to lead the BCA have time and again requested these resources. The government has, so far, repeatedly ignored these requests.

When giving evidence at the Jean Paul Sofia public inquiry, the former CEO of the BCA, Karl Azzopardi, stated that he had repeatedly requested funds for a staff complement of 300 to regulate the industry through inspections and enforcement. The recruitment process was slow and the funds allocated rarely matched what he considered necessary.

From Azzopardi’s evidence at the public inquiry, it results that there were only 11 inspectors at the BCA against a projected requirement of between 40 and 50. In addition to recruitment, he explained that there was also the requirement to train those selected meticulously, as otherwise, they would not be in any way effective.

Karl Azzopardi was squeezed out of his CEO post by the incoming Minister Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi, who preferred his own man, Jesmond Muscat, who, however, resigned earlier this week. The BCA, in the meantime, is still without adequate resources as the Prime Minister’s words have so far not been matched with the allocation of the required resources.

The lack of resources allocated to the BCA is a major contributor leading to the frequent construction incidents which are becoming a too frequent occurrence. Without funds for the BCA to hire and train staff to carry out its regulatory duties, we may have more incidents in the weeks and months to come. There is a political responsibility to be shouldered for this lack of funding of the BCA. Prime Minister Robert Abela tried to transmit the subtle message that Minister Zrinzo Azzopardi was shouldering this by removing the building industry portfolio from his Ministerial responsibilities in the last Cabinet reshuffle.

This is however not enough.

The BCA is once more without a CEO, who is quite obviously fed up with being treated as a political football by those appointing him. His letter of resignation was not published, but its timing gives a clear message which cannot be ignored.

As results from the Sofia inquiry report,  the BCA inspectorate was made up of eleven persons! An identical number of persons make up the BCA Board of Directors!  Those are the government’s BCA priorities at this point.

When the government starts adequately funding the BCA, then maybe we can have an inspectorate that acts proactively to identify the abusers in the industry before they lead to more deaths.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 28 April 2024

Unbridled Development: on whose side is the state?

After years of supporting unbridled development the Labour Party in government is trying to signal that, after all, it is on the side of the vulnerable, those who are continuously trampled by developers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As a result of the Sofia inquiry report, the BCA (Building and Construction Authority), on government’s instructions, issued a call for architects (and lawyers) to offer their services to assist those third parties impacted by development.

The current initiative is a positive step forward but, in my opinion, it is insufficient as it subjects the available assistance to instructions from the BCA. It is the BCA which decides whether and to what extent professional assistance is required.

A 13-page document was issued by the BCA on March 9, entitled “Expression of Interest. Invitation for the Provision of Periti to provide professional assistance to third parties”.

The service to be provided and paid for by BCA shall presumably cover advice relative to a description of the development, as well as the method statements submitted by the developer’s advisors. It will also cover inspections and the required estimates in the eventuality of damage sustained as a result of the development under consideration.

It is however not clear whether taking the BCA itself to task is covered by the said expression of interest. I am saying this because the professional service to be provided is subject to “the specific administrative instructions of the authority” as per paragraph 1.4 of the BCA expression of interest document.  This signifies that the BCA itself must authorize, for example, the seeking of advice to contest the way in which the BCA itself operates as well as to how it decides on specific cases.

This is just one aspect of the problems to be faced. The issues that should have been addressed are much wider and deeper than what is being acknowledged by the conditions of the expression of interest document.

Consider, for example, ground floor properties forming part of a two-storey development originally approved many years ago. When the existing development at first floor (and the overlying airspace) is purchased by developers with the intent to redevelop as a block of flats, it is hell for the ground floor residents. All sorts of pressures are resorted to in order to ensure that, as far as possible, residents acquiesce and shut up.

In such cases the ground/foundation condition reports being submitted leave much to be desired. It is logical that residents in ground-floor properties are reluctant to have their properties subjected to tests and sample boreholes in order that the prevalent geological conditions are identified. In the absence of this information, developers and their advisors are taking short cuts and making several. at times, incorrect assumptions as to the prevalent geological conditions on site. This is being done in order to give a clean bill of health to the proposed development.

Faced with such a situation some succumb to pressure from developers and consider moving out of their homes as a result, providing the desired carte blanche for the developers.

Is this fair? Yet this is what will eventually happen in a number of cases. In fact, it is already happening.

This is not a matter which can be adequately dealt with by the BCA after the development permit has been issued by the Planning Authority. It must be dealt with before the planning application is even submitted. Only then can one safely say that the legislator and the relative authorities are on the side of the downtrodden.

In simple words, it is much better to avoid the creation of a mess then having to deal with the not so pleasant consequences. This is how the vulnerable can be served.

Published in Times of Malta: Sunday 17 March 2024