Bill 143 proposes to significantly amend the definition of the “commencement notice” under Chapter 552 of Maltese planning law.
Currently, Chapter 552 defines a “commencement notice” as:
“a notice submitted by the perit on behalf of the applicant to the Authority at least five (5) days prior to the date of commencement of works or of the utilization of a permit, to notify the Authority of the date of commencement of works or of the utilization of a permit.”
Bill 143 introduces a more detailed and explicit definition:
“’commencement notice’ means a notice submitted to the Authority by the perit on behalf of the applicant not less than five (5) days prior to the intended date of commencement of works or the intended date of utilisation of a permit, whichever occurs earlier:
Provided that for the avoidance of doubt, the obtainment of a permit or the utilisation of a permit or the submission of a commencement notice shall not be construed, whether expressly or implicitly, as a certification of the structural soundness or safety of the works concerned, which matters are governed by separate procedures and requirements under other applicable laws.”
The proposed definition introduces two critical clarifications:
- Timing clarification: It explicitly states the notice must be submitted five days before either the commencement of works or the utilisation of the permit, whichever comes first.
- Explicit Safety Disclaimer: The definition explicitly clarifies that obtaining a planning permit or submitting a commencement notice does not imply structural safety or integrity certification. This responsibility falls under separate laws, notably the Building and Construction Authority Act (Chapter 623 of the Laws of Malta).
This distinction is essential because structural safety and integrity matters are clearly regulated by the Building and Construction Authority Act. Specifically, Article 5(1)(a) mandates the Building and Construction Authority to:
“Regulate the construction, maintenance, and demolition of buildings and structures to ensure public safety, comfort, and quality of life.”
Furthermore, Article 5(1)(b) tasks the Authority with:
“Establish and enforce standards and regulations relating to the structural integrity and safety of buildings.”
While this may initially seem like a redundant requirement since the Building and Construction Authority Act also demands a separate commencement notice, the Planning Authority’s commencement notice has a specific role in monitoring compliance with planning permits and managing vested rights. This can be particularly useful in clearly identifying when the current use authorized by the permit has been exhausted, thus enabling the transition to the specific use envisaged in the permit.
The judgment in Il-Pulizija vs Omissis u Anthony Camilleri (Court of Magistrates, 30 October 2015) clearly illustrates the importance of distinguishing structural safety responsibilities. In this criminal case, the accused were charged under Regulation 38 of Legal Notice 29 of 2010, previously Article 25 of the Police Code (Chapter 10 of the Laws of Malta), and linked to regulations also related to Transport Malta legislation. They were charged with allowing properties numbered 35, 36, 37, and 38 in Triq San Pawl, Bormla, to remain in a dangerous and deteriorating condition between 2010 and 2012. The Court relied upon Regulation 38 of Legal Notice 29 of 2010 (previously Article 25 of Chapter 10 of the Police Code), which explicitly prohibits individuals from leaving buildings or structures in a state of ruin or danger after being warned by the police or local wardens. Furthermore, this regulation also intersects with Transport Malta’s legislation, particularly concerning structures that might pose a risk to public safety on roads and public spaces, underscoring that multiple regulatory bodies might have interest in ensuring structural safety. The Court, while relying on Regulation 38, clarified that the obligation for structural safety and removal of danger rested explicitly with individuals holding effective control over the property:
“L-obbligu impost bit-tieni parti ta’ dan l-artikolu qiegħed fuq kull persuna li b’xi mod għandha kontroll effettiv fuq, u għalhekk tista’ effettivament tneħħi, il-perikolu eżistenti, sia jekk dik il-persuna hija s-sid jew l-inkwilin jew id-detentur jew l-amministratur tal-fond…”
Translated:
[The obligation imposed by the second part of this article lies on every person who in any way has effective control over, and can thus effectively remove, the existing danger, whether that person is the owner, tenant, occupant, or administrator of the property.]
As a side note – from a legislative coherence perspective – it might be more coherent legislatively for such provisions to be explicitly located within the Building and Construction Authority legislation or the Police Code rather than Transport Malta laws.
Meanwhile, what is certain is that the explicit clarification provided by Bill 143 implicitly distinguishes the roles of periti involved in planning applications from those overseeing structural safety and integrity. The role of a perit involved in a planning application is ensuring compliance with land-use and planning regulations, whereas structural safety assessments must be explicitly mandated and managed separately by property owners and their appointed periti responsible for safety supervision. Of course, the same perit may be mandated to handle both roles, but this is not automatic. It is the responsibility of the owner, as the controller of the property, to explicitly define and mandate the limits of the perit’s responsibilities.
