Mangion Mangion & Partners, Malta Architects, Civil Engineers and Planning Consultants

The present day trend to redevelop existing buildings has resulted in a conflict between the requirements of the developer and the needs of the neighbours. In this article Perit Patrick Camilleri highlights some of the problems that arise on a daily basis and points out the need for the relevant authorities to address this issue in a more holistic manner.

The 1980's saw a new phenomenon manifest itself along the Sliema seafront. Two storey houses were being pulled down and replaced by apartment blocks. This was a direct result of the high demand for residences in this specific area and the gradual acceptance of apartment style living. These factors ultimately led to the whole of the Sliema seafront being redeveloped over a period of a few years as developers sought to satisfy the demand.

The "completion" of the redevelopment of the Sliema front has resulted in developers seeking out other areas that could be exploited. The sites they selected needed to be:

a) located in prime areas,
b) ideally owned by one person, (since this would make buying them out easier),
c) zoned for as many floors as possible but for no less than a minimum of three floors to allow for the construction of a penthouse.

The result of this trend is that whole streets of two storied residences are now being demolished to make way for the erection of apartment blocks.

Thus people owning a pleasant 2-storey residence suddenly find there is a massive apartment block, four, five or more stories high adjacent to them. When this happens on both sides of their house, they find they are living in a "canyon" between two overpowering apartment blocks. The loss of light and sunshine makes these 2-storey residences totally undesirable and the owners are virtually forced into selling their property and moving out.


In the course of my work as an architect there have been many instances where I have been asked to monitor development adjacent to my clients' properties. In virtually all such cases I have been struck by the tremendous levels of stress my clients have been placed under. The problems they have had to endure ranged from:

a) Demolition being carried out in an uncontrolled manner with the risk of structural damage,
b) Party walls being left exposed with the result that rainwater penetrates into the building ruining internal finishes,
c) Removal of beams and bond-stones in a haphazard manner causing damage to the finishes of their property,
d) Damage to waterproofing membranes due to movement of the structure,
e) Vibration damage due to very deep excavation works,
f) Movement of the foundations resulting in subsidence and settlement cracks,
g) Movement in the walls resulting in twisting of door and window frames,
h) Damage to rainwater pipes, drainage pipes, wells and reservoirs;
i) Rainwater penetration during the construction process since intermediate floors of the new development would have no provision for rainwater disposal,
j) Noise, vibration, dust, concrete being splashed all over one's roof and façade during the concreting operations, the constant movement of heavy vehicles, tower cranes placed in the street, etc.
k) Finally, the hassle of trying to get the damage caused to one's property put right and the nuisance of having remedial works being carried out inside one's residence. This means the added inconvenience of having to move furniture and decoration / ornaments to and fro to allow the tradesmen to work.

At the present time no practical and effective remedy exists for people whose property is damaged by development taking place next door. Their only option is to try to come to some agreement with the developer. If this is not possible, the matter ends up going to court.

If the aggrieved owner wins the case, the developer is condemned to put right the damage. If the developer does not put right the damage, then the injured party has the right to carry out the repairs at his own expense and to then take action to collect his expenses from the developer.

This is a highly unsatisfactory situation particularly when one considers that by the time all this has happened the developer has probably sold the development and no longer has any interest in the matter.

Over and above all this, present day legislation only considers that actual expenses can be "charged" to the developer causing the damage. Any personal time expended by the owner of the adjacent residence is NOT considered chargeable. The value of all of the time spent in shifting furniture and cleaning, (invariably carried out by the owners themselves), cannot be claimed.

This places residents under tremendous stress, often resulting in physical illness and it is clear that the situation is unacceptable.

The present situation does not cover anything other than real damages and costs. The inconvenience to the residents, sometimes over a period of years, is simply ignored.

The solution to this problem is not an easy one. A knee-jerk reaction would be to impose a multitude of restrictions and conditions on developers. This would be wrong. It would have the effect of pushing development costs even higher at a time when the market cannot sustain any further cost increases.

Some solution must be found to ensure that the impact of such developments on the neighbours is more tightly controlled and that a speedy means found to resolve disputes.

Thus procedures must be put in place to ensure that:

a) new development being carried out within residential areas must be carried out in such a manner that dust and noise are controlled and that the building operations themselves do not impinge significantly upon adjacent properties.
b) any damage clearly the result of the adjacent development must be put right in an acceptable and speedy manner.
c) the inconvenience and disruption caused to neighbours is adequately assessed and compensated for.

However, one must also bear in mind that there could be people willing to take advantage of the developer by submitting claims for all sorts of damage, normally the result of wear and tear, in an effort to milk the developer for all he is worth. The procedure adopted must therefore also address the developer's rights, by protecting against claims that are frivolous or claims for damages that are unrelated to the work being carried out.

A clear set of regulations would go a long way to avoiding these very stressful situations.

Perit Patrick Camilleri is a partner in the architectural practice Mangion, Mangion & Partners - and can be contacted on pcamilleri@mmp.com.mt or 21336704.