In an article penned by Maltatoday journalist James Debono, which appeared last week, we were told that architects who supervise works on illegal buildings in protected areas could become liable to prosecution if the Malta Environment and Planning Authority follows the advice of its auditor, Joe Falzon. We were also told that any professional who is giving a consulting service to his client should be obliged to inform the MEPA if his client commences any site operations without the relevant permits or if he chooses to ignore any conditions imposed in the permit.
The Auditor went further to state that disciplinary proceedings leading to the revocation of the warrant to practice should be taken against any offending professionals.
According to the same article, MEPA’s auditor is on record stating that “consultants should assist MEPA in its assessment of planning applications, and not try to find loopholes in the system or assist developers to break the law. I consider it a breach of professional ethics when a professional acts or in any way assists another person to conduct illegal activities.”
This same article follows an application to sanction illegal works, and which application was eventually approved by MEPA, in a zone known as Ta’ Baldu.
I must make it clear at the very outset that I am in no way involved in this particular case. However there are very important considerations which deserve to be clarified.
The Auditor is suggesting that “any professional who is giving a consulting service to his client should be obliged to inform the MEPA if his client commences any site operations without the relevant permits or if he chooses to ignore any conditions imposed in the permit”. He is correct. However, it goes without saying that in the event that works are taken in hand by the developer without the architect being notified, the architect cannot be held responsible for his client’s actions.
If the architect involved in the Ta’ Baldu application did not give any instructions to his client to undertake the illegal works, he should not be held responsible for any of his client’s actions.
Occasionally, works are taken in hand without the architect being notified! An architect becomes aware that works are in hand, only if the developer submits a commencement notice to the Authority, which notice has to be delivered to the Authority through the architect in charge.
Indeed, when works are taken in hand without a permit (or in breach of permit conditions) and a sanctioning application is submitted by an architect, the Authority is being made aware of the alleged illegalities.
In this way, consultants are assisting MEPA in their efforts to pin down illegal development. Such behaviour on the part of architects cannot be portrayed as assistance to break the current law. On the contrary, architects are actually assisting their clients to align themselves with the law.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
We were also told that any professional who is giving a consulting service to his client should be obliged to inform the MEPA if his client commences any site operations without the relevant permits or if he chooses to ignore any conditions imposed in the permit. 
