The situation surrounding the application for apartments near the Ggantija temple complex has painted a clear picture of just how dire the situation in the Planning Authority is.
In a statement on Thursday, the Planning Authority announced that the permit was being revoked and being sent for reassessment. The decision was made by the Planning Authority Board after the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage had requested the suspension or revocation of the permit, saying that the information provided to the Planning Board by the applicant’s architect and representative was incorrect, and that no Heritage Impact Assessment was carried out despite it being requested.
In its statement, the Planning Authority said: “The Board noted that when it had discussed and decided on this application it had been given ‘incorrect information’ on whether the proposed development fell in or outside the proposed UNESCO buffer zone of the Ġgantija temples. The Board had relied on the premise that the proposed development was within an Area of Archaeological importance and that the necessary surveys had been carried out and confirmed that there are no archaeological remains on the site in question.”
This is essentially an admission that the Board, and at that the Planning Authority personnel, did not do their jobs properly, and this regarding a site which has World Heritage Status.
It is absolutely unacceptable that this situation played out the way it did. Who will carry responsibility for this blunder? Where are the resignations?
According to the minutes of the Planning Authority Board session when the decision to grant the permit was originally taken, the applicant’s representative said that the site does not fall within the Ggantija buffer zone. It also reads that: “On a point of clarification made by the Chairman, the Directorate confirmed that the site falls within the Ggantija Area of Archaeological Importance and not the Ggantija Buffer Zone.”
On such an important site for the Maltese islands, the board representatives should have studied up enough to know the facts on the tips of their fingers. The directorate should also have known better. Only one board member had, in the board meeting that took the original decision to approve, voted against the approval of the application and said that a Heritage Impact Assessment should be carried out… the NGO’s representative.
An updated case officer’s report which was uploaded after the SCH’s request for the revocation or suspension of the permit, but before the PA took its most recent decision to revoke the permit, reads that the PA deduced that “the information relayed to the Planning Board for decision on PA 570/21 was based, inter alia, on GN 853 of 2010 where the site in question is part of the Area of Archaeological Importance around the Ggantija Temples and other historical remains, and not the Buffer Zone of Ggantija Temples as per UNESCO’s decision in 2015 (…)The constraints of a site where development is being proposed are one of the vital and most basic of information that is submitted before the Planning Board for decision on the approval or otherwise of the proposed development. As a result of this error incorrect information on the constraints on site, the Planning Board did not consider the site of PA 570/21 as being part of the Buffer Zone of the Ggantija Temples. Therefore, following the above assessment, the Development Management Directorate together with the Legal Counsel are of the opinion that the Planning Authority should invoke Article 80 (1) (b) and revoke PA 570/21, on the basis of the fact that there is the submission of incorrect information which does not reflect the situation on site.”
Should the SCH have been more clear prior to the original board decision that a Heritage Impact Assessment was required, yes. It had in 2022 even said: “The Superintendence does not object to the revised proposal.” It seems that it was only later when the UNESCO World Heritage Centre sent it a letter insisting that a Heritage Impact Assessment should be carried out that it began pushing for it.
This situation was a failure by the authorities who are bound to safeguard heritage in Malta, and those who are there to take decisions regarding planning in the country.
It is all well and good that the error was identified and now the application has been sent back for reassessment and the carrying out of a Heritage Impact Assessment, but this error should not have been made in the first place. It makes one wonder whether, if such a blunder is made on such an important site for the country, how really capable is the board of taking decisions regarding heritage sites which are of less importance?