It is an unfortunate case and one that is also very symbolic of the reform of the Malta Environmental and Planning Authority that the government is attempting to undertake. It also bears a stark resemblance to another case this newspaper highlighted almost two years ago to the day.

As in 2007, the issue at hand revolves around yet another property development within the buffer zone of the Xaghra Stone Circle, part of Gozo’s Ggantija Temple complex and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

But while the 2007 development was a case of Mepa having permitted a development within the buffer zone, today’s front page story deals with a development still under application but which has already nearly been completed by the developer.

Heritage Malta had recently sought drastic action in the vicinity of the Ta’ Hagrat megalithic remains, and had its request to expropriate the land around the site granted by the government, despite the fact that Mepa had already approved the development. That was a bold move that will, hopefully, be repeated in the future, should the need arise.

As in the case of Ta’ Hagrat, this most recent development within the Xaghra Stone Circle buffer zone highlights what has become a dire need to correct certain shortcomings in the planning approval process, where more weight must be given to the opinions of both the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage as well as Heritage Malta in its capacity as the national authority.

While Mepa has its own team to assess threats to Malta’s archaeological heritage, both that which has already been uncovered and that which still lies undiscovered beneath the surface, the opinions of the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage clearly need to be given more consideration during the decision-making process.

Heritage is not an immediately renewable resource, and the numerous elements of the country’s precious heritage that remain unprotected and subject to encroaching development are begging for protection, anything short of which could potentially prove disastrous to the country.

At the end of the day, such developments do very little to serve the country but merely line developers’ pockets or provide a roof over heads that could find other suitable cover. Such trade-offs are insults to the country and its heritage and should no longer, in theory as well as in practice, be allowed to take place.