Four appeals have been filed against a decision taken by the Planning Authority to approve a permit for 22 apartments on the edge of the Xagħra Development Zone, near the Ġgantija Temples in Gozo.

The site currently consists of an existing two-storey building with an ancillary garage and stores, with undeveloped land at the rear. The front of the site overlooks Triq il-Parsott. The applicant, Emmanuel Farrugia, had filed an application for the demolition of an existing dwelling (including dismantling part of existing façade) and the construction of 20 garages at basement level and 22 overlying apartments on three levels (including the ground floor), with the top level being a setback floor.

The application had originally been filed at the end of 2020, and was approved by the PA in November 2023.

The granting of the controversial permit by the Planning Authority Board caused uproar, and appeals were filed with the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal. Two appeals were filed by a number of NGOs, while the other two were submitted by the Heritage Malta Agency and the Xagħra Local Council. Separately, the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage (SCH) has filed a letter with the PA calling for the permit to be suspended or revoked.

Some of the main reasons cited in the appeals argue that the PA’s decision was based on incorrect information regarding the site’s position within the Ġgantija buffer zone, that the approval of the permit breaches policy and that due to the site’s proximity to the Ġgantija Megalithic Temples, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a Heritage Impact Assessment had to be carried out.

According to a report by the planning application’s case officer in October 2022, “The Superintendence, along with the UNESCO World Heritage Sites Technical Committee, note that the latest proposal has adequately addressed the concerns” that were outlined in a previous document. “There is therefore no objection to the volume and massing of the building as proposed in the latest drawings.” But then in February 2023 a note was filed by the SCH, stating that UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre had insisted that a Heritage Impact Assessment should be carried out for this development, in accordance with operational guidelines. The application was suspended, but in September 2023, an updated case officer’s report read that no information had been submitted following the note by the SCH, and the application process then resumed before the Planning Authority Board in November.

Photo: Daniel Cilia

 

Minutes from the Planning Authority Board meeting in November read that “Dr John Gauci, on behalf of the applicant, noted that the request for a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was not directly submitted to the applicant. Instead, it was mentioned as a comment in a letter submitted by the SCH dated 8 February 2023, stating that the UNESCO Board was requesting this HIA. Furthermore, Dr Gauci clarified that the site in question is not within the buffer zone of Ġgantija but outside this buffer zone. In fact, the SCH did not request any further studies but on three separate occasions had indicated its no objection to the proposal. A no objection [sic] was also submitted by the UNESCO World Heritage Site Technical Committee and Heritage Malta. Dr Gauci noted that the concerns being raised by the representees are outside the remit of this forum since the site is outside the Ġgantija buffer zone and all concerns raised by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage were addressed during the processing of this application.”

The minutes also read that, “On a point of clarification made by the chairman, the Directorate confirmed that the site falls within the Ġgantija Area of Archaeological Importance and not the Ġgantija buffer zone”.

But appellants have argued that the site does indeed fall within the Ġgantija buffer zone, and that a HIA was required. The Xagħra Local Council, in its appeal, argued that the Planning Commission’s decision was “based on incorrect information which led the board to incorrectly classify the site as not falling within the official buffer zone of the Ġgantija Temples as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. In turn this has led to non-adherence to the obligations linked to the UNESCO World Heritage Site status of the Ġgantija Temples”.

The local council said that third parties had insisted that the site fell within the official buffer zone and that therefore an HIA had to be carried out. It also said that according to the map published on the UNESCO World Heritage Sites website, the buffer zone does include the site in question.

It cited the aforementioned argument made by the applicant’s representative, and the directorate’s confirmation of “the wrong information”.

The local council said that the board members who approved the application “without a Heritage Impact Assessment were not aware of the fact that the site falls within the boundaries of the buffer zone and therefore this assessment had to be carried out”.

“This fundamental misinformation led to the board’s decision not being an informed decision, but one based on factually incorrect information which perforce should be considered as having a material and substantive impact on that decision. For this reason alone, the permit should be revoked,” the Council said.

In another appeal, Flimkien Għall Ambjent Aħjar, Għawdix and the Ramblers Association said that the buffer zone had years ago been widened, and also said that the development falls within the buffer zone. They argue that this can be confirmed through a simple analysis of documents like maps and official photos, “that the Planning Authority itself has, as well as through experts in this field who have already given their professional opinions”. They also argued that a prestigious and sensitive site like the Megalithic Temples had to be given absolute protection, yet a “massive and disproportionate” permit was issued, and said that restrictive (and incorrect) interpretations had been given by high-up officials within the authority. They also said that the obligation for a HIA was not fulfilled and that the way things were done also led to a breach of the Aarhus convention.

A separate appeal by Din l-Art Ħelwa and the Archaeological Society Malta read that board members who approved the development without a HIA having taken place, were not conscious that the site falls within the confines of the buffer zone, and that is why such assessment had to take place. They argued that the decision was based on factually incorrect information and should be revoked.

A number of other points of appeal were raised by the various appellants regarding breaches of planning policy. Among other things, the appeal by Din l-Art Ħelwa and the Archaeological Society Malta states for instance that there was a breach of certain provisions within the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED) and that the board failed to take into consideration certain issues of material substance when, they said, the authority did not adhere to obligations imposed on Malta as a signatory to the UNESCO conventions. The appeal by Flimkien Ghall Ambjent Aħjar, Għawdix and the Ramblers Association, among other things, states that the permit went against the Local Plan as well as the SPED, among other things.

Heritage Malta’s appeal

Even Heritage Malta and the SCH have come out contesting the application, with the former filing an official appeal.

The Heritage Malta Agency said that it is “factually incorrect that the development lies outside the buffer zone. In fact, the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage, in various feedback and communications throughout the sittings, highlighted the fact that it falls within the buffer zone as Ġgantija Area of Archaeological Importance and within 200m of the Ġgantija site”, Heritage Malta said, adding that the site of the proposed development “clearly falls” within the buffer zone, as per a document regarding the buffer zone that it cited.

The appeal read that Heritage Malta and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage “indicated that, as stipulated by policy, if a site lies within a buffer zone, it does not mean that no development may occur, but rather that conditions need to be met/imposed for a development to occur. That put simply, by disregarding this crucial matter, members of the board were actually misguided and therefore the conclusion reached by the Planning Authority was in fact erroneous, that is against the prevailing policy and law”.

Heritage Malta also argues that a HIA was not optional, “but a pre-requisite, in the circumstances of the present case”.

It also said that it is “contesting the fact that a Heritage Impact Assessment was not requested by the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage, or that the request was not made to the applicant. This is also manifestly incorrect, since in fact, the applicant presented two HIAs to the Superintendent, which assessments were not accepted by representatives of the appellant and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage (as members of the National World Heritage Technical committee) since they were not in line with the UNESCO Operational Guidelines”.

All appeals are scheduled to have their first sitting on 25 January.

 

SCH files request with PA

The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, meanwhile, filed a letter with the PA itself about the permit that was granted, noting that the HIA required from the applicant had to be drafted in accordance with the UNESCO and ICOMOS Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessments in a World Heritage Context, “which was requested by the Superintendence on 8 February 2023 has not been submitted to the satisfaction of the Superintendence. All previous versions received by the Superintendence did not address the requirements of the UNESCO and ICOMOS Toolkit and therefore this matter is still pending”.

The SCH made reference to the November Planning Board meeting “where the applicant’s architect and representative informed the Planning Board that the site lies outside the Ġgantija buffer zone and that the Superintendence did not request for the Heritage Impact Assessment. The assertion by the applicant’s representatives is incorrect. The site is indeed within the buffer zone for the Ġgantija World Heritage Site, as submitted by the Government of Malta at the time, which is one and the same as the statutory protection boundary at National Level as an Area of Archaeological Importance. This has been stated by the SCH in its communication about the case. With regard to the request for a HIA, this was indeed requested by the Superintendence to the applicant’s architect via a formal email dated 8 February 2023, which email was acknowledged and uploaded on e-apps. The Superintendence met on various occasions with the architect, applicant and HIA co-ordinator to discuss the drafting of the document, however this is still pending as already mentioned above”.

The Superintendence said that the information provided to the Planning Board by the applicant’s architect and representative is incorrect, hence the SCH “is requesting the Planning Authority to temporarily suspend and if necessary modify or even revoke the aforesaid permission by virtue of the Development Planning Act”.

PA reply

Asked whether the PA has accepted the request by the SCH, or whether it will be accepting it, the Authority said that it is “currently assessing the merits of the request submitted by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage for the revocation of PA570/21 under the provisions of Article 80 of the Development Planning Act 2016”.