Architects stop BCA clearance applications over new rules

The directive follows amendments to the Avoidance of Damage to Third Party Property Regulations. According to Times of Malta, the chamber’s objection centres on a new definition of “Planning Perit”, described as making architects “responsible for the design, coordination and compliance of the project with planning and development requirements, including planning permit conditions”.

That is where a technical amendment turns into a professional revolt. Chamber president Andre Pizzuto argued that the new wording shifts responsibility away from permit holders and towards architects in situations they may not control. “It’s akin to holding a lawyer responsible for the client’s wrongdoing,” he told Times of Malta.

Under the previous system, Pizzuto said, responsibility for complying with planning permit conditions rested with the permit holder, and any enforcement action over breaches would be directed at the property owner or permit holder rather than the architect. The chamber’s complaint is that the amended rules blur that line.

Pizzuto’s point, as reported, is not that architects should be immune from responsibility for their own work. It is that planning breaches often arise during later stages of a project, particularly finishing works, when the architect may no longer be involved in practice. He also said breaches can occur after works are completed, when the perit has no direct or indirect influence.

The chamber has also argued that architects are being exposed to liabilities “for which they are potentially underinsured” without having the contractual tools to take complete control of a project from developers. That is a dispute about responsibility, but also about the gap between how regulations are drafted and how building sites actually function.

The exception for dangerous structures matters because it keeps the protest from becoming absolute. Architects may continue using established BCA procedures in those cases, which suggests the directive is aimed at contesting the amended rules rather than stopping every application regardless of risk.

There is still uncertainty over how far the amendments reach. Pizzuto said the directive is primarily aimed at new projects, but the chamber is also examining whether ongoing developments could be affected. If they are, he warned, the directive may need to be broadened.

Times of Malta reported that the BCA contacted the chamber on Tuesday and that the chamber hopes the dispute can be resolved swiftly.