On whose side is the State?
Unbridled development
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 the 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 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 authorise, 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 shortcuts and making several, at times, incorrect assumptions as to the prevalent geological conditions on site. This is being done 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 home 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 than having to deal with the not-so-pleasant consequences. This is how the vulnerable can be served.
“Some succumb to pressure from developers and consider moving out of their home
Carmel Cacopardo is a former chairperson of ADPD -The Green Party.