Plans for a six-unit apartment block to replace a terraced house in the buffer area of a precarious cave which were refused by the Planning Commission have now been sent back for re-consideration by an appeals tribunal, prompting concerns from residents who live in the area surrounding the cave.

Għar il-Friefet is situated on the outskirts of Birzebbuga, a mere stone's throw away from the hugely historically significant Għar Dalam.  It is a series of chambers connected by tunnels set at three levels and is said to date back to at least the Bronze Age, with remains from that period having been found in the cave having likely been deposited there. 

It is today classed as a Class B archaeological site of and a level 1 site of scientific interest and there is a buffer zone now established around the cave.

A 2008 planning control application had introduced a "presumption against development or redevelopment proposals that include excavation works within the scheduled areas and specifically within the Għar il-Friefet scheduled buffer zone."

In 2022, Ruben Magro through architect Elena Borg Costanzi proposed demolishing the existing terraced house on the site in question and constructing a maisonette and garages at ground floor, 6 overlying units and a recessed penthouse instead.

The plans also included a reservoir or well to be constructed below ground level, and a part of the site was directly overlying the cave.

The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage had requested documentation and studies to pertain to the proposed development, while the ERA noted both the stipulations introduced in 2008 and the fact that the cave is also an important bat habitat.

The documentation requested by the Superintendence was never submitted by the applicant.  The project architect had argued that the project included no rock excavation and that the reservoir may be put in place of an existing pool. The architect also specified that the foundations will consist of strip and pad foundations and will be placed on the existing rock level, with no need for excavation.

The applicant had argued that a Ground Investigation Report of the adjacent site was publicly available from a planning application filed in 2016 - but the Superintendence insisted that it wanted documentation pertaining specifically to this application.

This application was refused by the Planning Commission, a decision in line with the case officer's opinion.  The case officer recommended that the application be refused because the proposed developed would "have a significant impact on the historic and natural heritage."

"The proposal is therefore in conflict with Thematic Objective 8 of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development which aims for the safeguarding and enhancement of cultural heritage," the case officer had said.

Soon after the refusal, the applicant filed an appeal with the Environment & Planning Review Tribunal.

"No basements are being proposed and no further excavation is required from the existing levels. Reference to the superimposed drawings, the cave is only located in a small corner of the site, mostly in the front garden. Various structural solutions could be used," the applicant argued, saying that a surveying company had been commissioned to take a 3D survey of the cave and its relation to the levels above.

The applicant also noted that a residential development which included three storeys of excavation was also approved in 2019, but the Tribunal noted that the development maintained a 15 metre before from the appellant's site and no excavation was carried out within 21 metres.

The results of the 3D survey was presented to the EPRT through a Ground Investigation Report, and it noted that "The removal of the top <1m thick soil is permissible; any excavation should not exceed 1.5m depth from the bedrock surface if open joints are encountered; and it is recommended that any excavation works are monitored by a geologist to assess any potential unsafe blocks that may daylight during excavation."

In its decision notice, the EPRT noted that the Planning Commission had referred to the project as a whole - not just the excavation - as being of detriment to the area's heritage, and also noted that the development included a well or reservoir which did not previously exist, meaning that the plans are contrary to the appellant's submission that one wouldn't need to lower the existing levels of the site.

The Tribunal also noted that the submission that the cave will only be situated under the project's front garden was incorrect, referring to section diagrams submitted in the project which "clearly shows part of the cave under the proposed garage, which therefore means that all indications are that part of the cave will be burdened with additional weight."

The Tribunal also quoted from the Ground Investigation Report filed by the appellant saying that it contains declarations which continue to create doubts about the stability of Għar il-Friefet and the adequacy of any development within this context.

"The effect of excavation and loading of the underlying rock can lead to the following: The increased differential settlement that can result in unacceptable strain (fractures) in the masonry of the existing building of the client. Georisk level 3," the report was quoted as saying.

It was also quoted as saying that excavation and loading could create the "potential for ground failure along joints when the proposed excavation in rock results in the daylighting of unstable and unsupported blocks beneath existing buildings. Georisk level 1 to 2."

The report explains that a Georisk level 1 to 2 is a "high to moderate risk" and that there may be a rock failure.

"The placing of a load (proposed built structure) will increase the normal stress depending on the shape of the foundation and could result in overall loss of stability if the limit state is exceeded," the report was also quoted as saying.

The Tribunal concluded that because the report was submitted at the appeals stage, and therefore after the PA's decision, and because the report is not enough to determine the extent of the risks to cultural heritage and the type of mitigation to it, the best way forward is for the application to be sent back to the Planning Authority.

The application would be sent back at the stage prior to the Case Officer's report so that the PA can take the Ground Investigation Report into consideration and so that the application has the chance to submit further studies that ensure that cultural heritage will be protected from any damages.

This means that the initial refusal of the permit has been, in effect, nullified and that the PA will once again have to decide whether to approve or refuse of the proposal.

The renewed possibility that that the proposal may be approved has worried residents whose houses are partially built on top of the cave.

One such resident testified before the EPRT that the cave is already displaying cracks and that parts of rock had fallen in the past.  He told the tribunal that placing added weight on the cave would endanger his home and his family.

The Planning Authority's case officer will now reconsider the facts of the application, taking into consideration the new studies and others which may be submitted in the coming weeks, before issuing a recommendation on the project.