Third party property rights

I refer to the article Proposals For Safe Demolition, Excavation (March 30). Judging by the price of land and the thousands of liri changing hands where property is concerned, the figure of Lm250,000 as third party insurance is meagre. Why not something like Lm1 million being forked out for the victims? We seem to be ignoring the fact that two women have lost their lives.

The first thing that should be proposed and discussed seriously is total harmonisation between the Malta Environment and Planning Authority regulations and the civil laws, notably the code of police laws (Chapter 10).

Moreover, it is worth noting that although safety is a major concern for the third party, it is by far not their only worry. Other types of complaints have been raised by third parties.

1. Some have complained that they spent thousands of liri to build a decent house with a good backyard and a garden. All is well for the first few years until a contractor buys the back-to-back house and demolishes it. He then erects a skyscraper that dwarfs the back-to-back neighbour. And guess what? The contractor gets the full blessing of the competent (incompetent?) authority to have windows within two feet of the common (back) party wall in order to "enjoy" the other neighbour's yard for free.

Although the police code apparently has safeguards with regard to a minimum depth of yard, that is, the whole width of a house (depth and width are interchanged in the code), one is suddenly confronted by rules (v) and (vi) of chapter 10 of the code, p23, where it is stated that the backyard may be reduced to any diminutive size by "the competent authority".

2. A contractor buys a house and keeps it locked. He applies for a development permit from Mepa and makes it a point not to put up a copy of the development application on the front of the house at a height of two metres. When it is past the closing date for the public to make representations to Mepa, the developer builds his skyscraper with a two-foot yard on the excuse that the land is too small for a decent yard. And yet it is large enough to hold flats! The third party is told that the application appeared in a certain paper on a certain day. So it is past the closing date for objections to be submitted.

3. A street has detached villas on either side that have stood there for over 40 years. The street is a villa area. No need for any recognition as that much is obvious. Mepa suddenly decides that it is an "area designated for terraced houses" and allows... flats!

4. A friend of mine had to hire the services of a lawyer to make sure that 76 cm of rock (as laid down by law!) is left uncut during excavations behind his wall. Where was Mepa? Why is this institution so insensitive where the third party is concerned? Why has it abandoned the mission it was set up for?