The Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers (KTP) recently introduced guidelines for its members working on projects close to megalithic temples.

The Directive aims, the Chamber said, to set out the limitations on the types of development that can be carried out within the buffer zones of megalithic temples in Malta, and provides technical guidance on how to go about carrying out such projects in compliance with these guidelines, the chamber said.

Now the guidelines have yet to be tested, and one awaits to see just how effective they will be, but nonetheless it was a good initiative taken by the Chamber.

Amongst other things, the guidelines state that development within the buffer zones must be of a scale and design that is appropriate and compatible with the international architectural and cultural heritage value of the temples and their buffer zones. The following types of development within the buffer zones of the megalithic temples in Malta would be considered by the Council to give rise to potential professional misconduct: Development that would alter the physical, visual or environmental integrity of the megalithic temples, their buffer zones and surrounding landscape; Development that would have a negative impact on the cultural or natural heritage value of the megalithic temples, their buffer zones and surrounding landscape; Development that would alter the views or vistas of and from the megalithic temples, their buffer zones and surrounding landscape.

One hopes that the guidelines are strong enough to ensure the protection of these zones.

What must also be pointed out, however, is that there are other sites around the country that also need protecting. Thus far, we have done a decent job of protecting areas like Valletta and Mdina, but there are urban centres in localities which have been negatively impacted by the surrounding development.

In certain areas, for instance, there are points where the edge of a UCA area is met with buildings that jar right outside it.

The issue of the treatment of scheduled buildings on the island is also another issue which this newsroom has already brought up in editorials before. Protecting a scheduled building’s façade is not enough. If the area around it is ruined by ugly constructions, then the context of the protected building is changed.

Of course these are not issues for the Chamber of Architects to solve. We need a better Planning Authority and better policies. Sometimes it feels as though everything is geared towards approving applications, rather than ensuring adequate protection. Just like MEPA was split into two authorities a few years back, perhaps it is time to look into how we can modify the PA, strengthen the environmental aspects and also strengthen the cultural heritage aspect. The kind of development we have been seeing around the islands over the past years is just not appealing to the eye.