The relocation of St Albert the Great College from Valletta to a site in Għaxaq the size of about five football pitches would have major impacts on the environment and on cultural heritage, according to a new report.

An environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the project, proposed for an ODZ site on the outskirts of the village, found that the new school would also have an adverse effect on the general landscape of the area.

The school would take up an area of 31,500 square metres. This would result in the loss of a considerable area of agricultural land, with a direct impact on the water cycle, says the EIA, requested of the applicant by the Environment and Resources Authority.

A map showing the area to be taken up by the new school.

The college, run by the Dominican Order, had started talks with the Planning Authority for its relocation more than two decades ago.

At the time, the Teresa Nuzzo School, in Marsa, also Church-run, had also expressed an intention to relocate. Both schools lacked the appropriate facilities for a growing student population.

The site in Għaxaq, on the periphery of the urban settlement, was earmarked for both schools after a search for a location within the development zone proved unsuccessful.

The land, on the corner of Triq il-Ħareb and Dawret Ħal-Għaxaq, is the property of the Dominican Province.

It measures nearly 72,000 square metres in all.

In 2006, an application was submitted for the relocation of both schools to the site but it was withdrawn in 2018. Two years later, another application was filed for the relocation of St Albert the Great College alone.

The Dominicans had long felt the need to provide a modern and more spacious alternative to their school premises in Valletta.

The plan of the school includes landscaping and sports facilities.

The building is more than 70 years old and lacks sufficient room for lecturers, laboratories, sport and extra-curricular activities. 

The original proposal had a different layout to the new plans. It included dormitory accommodation, which was subsequently dropped during the planning process.

The revised project now occupies an area of just under 36,000 square metres. About 5,000 square metres would be retained in its current state to accommodate dense landscaping and educational horticultural activities.

According to a project description statement, the new school would be co-educational, catering for around 650 boys and girls from the age of five to 16.

Just over 5,100 square metres of the site would be built up. The rest of the area would include more landscaping, sports facilities and drop-off areas for parents and school transport.

The school would be composed of three blocks: one for early and middle school, one for administration and the kindergarten, and another for the senior school. An underground car park would have spaces for 121 cars.

The project includes a separate small childcare centre catering primarily for teachers’ children. 

In addition, an underground indoor sports hall would be built beneath the external basketball court.

According to the environmental impact assessment, the new school would increase traffic by a daily average of 711 trips during the scholastic year. Nearly 100 trees, some of them protected species, would also be lost. The proposed landscaping, however, would see 720 trees planted across the entire site in compensation.

About 12,000 cubic metres of excavated material would be re-used in the construction and some of the inert demolition waste would be recycled. The soil removed would be reused for the new landscaping.

The EIA found that, although there are no scheduled cultural heritage features within or in the immediate vicinity of the site, there are a significant number of recorded cultural heritage features not yet scheduled.

Most of these features would be lost in the development, including a farmhouse considered to merit a Grade 2 level of protection.

The majority of rubble walls, field rooms, huts, wells, quarrying features, stone heaps and country tracks and paths meriting a Grade 3 level of protection would also be lost.

The EIA noted that following talks with the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, the applicant agreed to restore some of these features or incorporate them in the landscaping.

The Environmental Resources Authority is accepting comments by the public on the EIA until the end of the month.