PA gives final approval to controversial apartment block in Ġgantija buffer zone

Updated 12.30pm

The Planning Authority has given its final approval to a controversial plan to build a 22-apartment block of flats and 20 basement garages within the buffer zone of Ġgantija Temple in Xagħra, Gozo. 

In a meeting on Thursday the planning board voted 10 to 1 in favour of the proposal. 

The PA had already approved the controversial application – PA/00570/21 - in 2023, before an appeal led to the permit being revoked pending a heritage impact assessment (HIA) by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, which was concluded in February. 

The SCH said shortly after that it had no further objections to the plans, following revised drawings – in line with the impact assessment submitted by the developers. However, a coalition of NGOs criticised the agency’s decision, calling it “deeply questionable” following an examination of its reasoning. 

The Planning Board had agreed to defer its decision to give objectors a chance to make their case to the SCH. 

Since the position of the heritage watchdog remained unchanged, Planning Board chairman Emanuel Camilleri closed the public discussion on Thursday morning and proceeded to the board discussion, followed by the vote. 

Camilleri noted the HIA had been completed to the satisfaction of the SCH and that the latest drawings had been amended with recommendations in mind.

NGO representative Romano Cassar was the only vote against the propsal. He said the HIA contained contradictions, since it appeared to justify the application by arguing that buildings of its height had already been approved in the vicinity, while also warning that the application could set a precedent. 

'Alarming' decision

Cassar argued that the block was too close to the temple site, and would replace an old farmhouse with a modern block.  

Before the approval, the coalition of NGOS – made up of Din l-Art Ħelwa Għawdex, Għawdix and Wirt Għawdex - said that despite the SCH assessment claiming that screening, scoping, and stakeholder consultation were outside its remit, they were “not optional extras”. 

“They are the backbone of the UNESCO process. Remove them, and what remains is not a rigorous assessment but a partial one. Yet the Superintendence presents this as methodological strength.” 

It also accused the document of “leaning heavily” on UNESCO and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), which it said was presented as a seal of approval. 

“But UNESCO does not approve projects. It does not endorse HIAs. It reviews, comments, and advises. To present that as an endorsement is, at best, imprecise. At worst, it is misleading. Also, no ICOMOS report was presented to back the SCH claims.” 

Questioning the superintendence’s handling of the assessment, the Coalition for Gozo noted that the HIA had conceded that the proposed development would “remain dominant in the streetscape” with the facade continuing to appear as a “single, homogeneous mass”. 

“These are not minor observations. They are red flags. And yet, despite all this – in what amounts to a breakdown in logic – the conclusion is that the impact is ‘not significant’”, the coalition said. 

“One cannot list impacts in detail and then simply declare them insignificant without explaining why. The Superintendence does not resolve this contradiction. It simply accepts it.” 

The NGOs also questioned the treatment of the buffer zone, accusing the Superintendence of arguing that the impacts of the development would be less important when experienced from within the buffer zone rather than outside. 

 It described the scheduling for demolition of a vernacular farmhouse as “alarming”, describing heritage items as being “reduced to a checklist”. 

“Approve this, and the next application will follow. And the next. Each will rely on the same logic: no significant impact, no contribution to OUV, no cumulative effect”, the coalition warned. 

“By the time the damage becomes undeniable, it will already be done. This is not a matter of technical disagreement but an abject failure of judgement ... In the end, the question is simple: is the Superintendence there to protect our heritage, or to justify its loss?” 

'Disgraceful approval'

Responding to the developments, Momentum said it condemned the “disgraceful approval” in the “strongest possible terms”. 

The decision “exposes a deeply flawed and compromised planning process”, the party said in a statement.  

“Even the Heritage Impact Assessment itself acknowledged that the development would remain visually dominant in the landscape, yet authorities still concluded that the impact was ‘not significant', a contradiction that has been strongly challenged by civil society. 

Momentum candidate for Gozo Carmel Asciak called the decision an “outright scandal”, and slammed institutions tasked with protecting heritage with “instead enabling its gradual destruction”. 

The party said the approval placed the UNESCO World Heritage site at “real and immediate risk”, remarking that buffer zones were created “precisely to prevent this kind of encroachment”. 

“Undermining these protections erodes Malta’s credibility and commitment to international heritage obligations.” 

Momentum called for the immediate reversal of the decision, full transparency on how it was reached and urgent reform of the planning system.