A proposed redevelopment in Attard has resulted in public uproar and concerns over a Grade 1 protected aqueduct.
The proposal seeks to turn a property which contains one villa, into four separate villas on Triq il-Linja /, Triq Peter Paul Rubens - Attard, but many have objected and over 100 people including residents as well as several ENGOs teamed up to urge protection of the monument,. The proposal also refers to the construction of a new road on the other side of the aqueducts.
The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage stated, in its submissions, that the site footprint in question is partly undeveloped and located between the scheduled (Grade 1) early seventeenth century Wignacourt aqueduct on one side and the late nineteenth century railway embankment on the other. “This area is also archaeological sensitivity owing the presence of a rock-cut tomb along Triq il-Linja (ca. 150m away) as well as classical structural remains a short distance away from the proposed development. Given the proximity of the site footprint to the aqueduct, the presence of wells/cisterns/reservoirs associated with the use of the aqueduct cannot be excluded. Although a building already exists over part of the site footprint in question, there is a risk that ground disturbance in this area may uncover cultural heritage features that may necessitate amendments to the proposed drawings.”
“Any approved development will require that works are archaeologically monitored in keeping with Terms of Reference issued by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage.”
The Superintendence states that the proposal indicates that part of the site footprint will be ceded to allow for the construction of a road. “This road will connect Triq Qrib San Anton which has already been partly constructed. It is understood that the volumes to be constructed will be receded from the scheduled aqueducts as well as the railway embankment by the width of the respective roads. Given the Grade 1 scheduled status of the Wignacourt aqueduct and the historical value of the railway embankment, the material and visual impact of development in the immediate vicinity of these cultural heritage features is of concern.”
The Superintendence did not object to the application, stating that it “does not object in principle to the proposed development application,” on a number of conditions, including that precautions are to be taken to ensure that works do not cause damage to the scheduled aqueduct or the railway embankment.
Some objectors however, asked the Superintendence to reconsider.
Din L-Art Helwa noted, in its objection, that the application in question will see the site redeveloped into four semidetached dwellings of 243sqm each “which goes against the policy which states that semi-detached plots should consist of 500sqm. This considerable increase in the number of dwellings, with subsequent take-up of the garden and open space will dramatically change the nature of the neighbourhood, creating a large building mass overlooking the neighbouring gardens, and multiplying the present footprint. This is counter to SPED which states that redevelopment should respect the predominant scale and context, which in this case is that of a detached villa area.”
“The proposal seeks to avail itself of the as yet unbuilt schemed road running parallel to the Wignacourt Aqueduct, a Grade 1 national monument, which in this stretch is the only part still visible in its original rural landscape, still farmed to this day. The road, if allowed to be developed, will destroy this, and further bury the arches, due to the resulting new road levels, and diminish the visual appreciation of this monument, as has occurred in other parts of the road. Should the road be constructed, the Aqueduct will be engulfed between the retaining wall of this proposed road and the retaining wall of Peter Paul Rubens Street. To date, there has been no scientific conservation study carried out to determine the impact that the construction of Peter Paul Rubens Street and its retaining wall has had on the Aqueduct as well as the impact that the construction of a similar road on the other side would have on this Grade 1 monument.”
DLH also highlighted that a previous application to the plot contiguous to the one, for the redevelopment into two detached villas was refused, and highlighted the concerns to that application made by the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage are also valid for this application. DLH commissioned a study of its own, which recommended that the aqueduct be conserved together with its current context.
Flimkien Ghall-ambjent Ahjar noted that “Despite the site being within the extents of this Grade 1 scheduled monument, the applicant has failed to provide information that clearly illustrates the impact of the proposed development on the aqueduct.” FAA called on the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage to reassess the impact of this proposed development and the extension of Triq Qrib San Anton, “following the submission of further information by the applicant, and to acknowledge the detrimental impact this application would have on this Grade 1 listed heritage monument.”
AD Chairperson Carmel Cacopardo has previously said that the construction of a street on the opposite side of the aqueduct would render the historic monument a centre strip.
Residents argue that “this is the only existing stretch of the Wigna Court Aqueduct that is retaining its original set i.e. having a rural background. The road has no real function other than to accommodate the development and the road itself will destroy completely the existing quiet dynamics of the area.”