A proposed two-storey house metres away from Ta’ Ħaġrat Temples in Mġarr would serve “an important aesthetic function” by softening the edge of development, according to the Office of the Permanent Delegation of Malta to Unesco.

The Malta delegation was reacting to comments by Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar that it was “extremely concerned” at the information Unesco was given regarding the permit granted to build a house within the buffer zone of Ta’ Ħaġrat Temples, a World Heritage Site.

Last month, the government announced that the concerns Unesco harboured regarding the development had been quelled.

According to the Malta delegation, Heritage Malta and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage considered the impact of the proposed development and raised two critical concerns: the visual impact on the site and the physical impact on the site and its surroundings.

With regard to the visual impact, the Superintendence requested pre-planning decision photomontages of the proposal showing what the development would look like from Ta’ Ħaġrat.

On studying the photomontages, Heritage Malta and the Superintendence saw the existing skyline would not be breached, the Malta delegation said.

It determined that although the proposed building would be closer to the site, it would “serve an important aesthetic function of softening the edge of development”.

The current context of this particular area is characterised by a high blank wall that is aesthetically discordant with the surroundings.

“It is felt that landscaping solutions, such as the planting of trees within the outside development zone area adjacent to the proposed new building, should not cause negative visual or archaeological impacts and may, in fact, improve the aesthetics of the area.”

Regarding the physical impact on the site and its surroundings, Heritage Malta and the Superintendence were concerned about projected rock-cutting for constructing the house.

Rock-cutting was therefore eliminated as a mitigation measure. The Superintendence further set conditions for archaeological monitoring of any construction works.

“As an additional mitigation measure, the construction footprint of the new house was strictly limited to the recognised development zone – this, contrary to the wishes of the developer.”

In response, the FAA maintained that it was impossible for a two-storey house built within metres of the temples not to breach the existing skyline, as its photomontage demonstrated.

The Superintendence’s concerns on the existing blank wall, the FAA continued, could be resolved by allowing climbers to grow up it.

“An unsightly wall that can be remedied so easily does not justify more development closer to the temples. However, beyond the negative invasive impact of this development on the temples, this is a case of respecting the law.

“The local plans for Mġarr prohibit all new development within the Mġarr Skorba and Ta’ Ħaġrat buffer zone. The importance of the zone is highlighted in various policies within the structure plan as well as in the north west local plan.

“It states ‘the main planning issues affecting Mġarr can be summarised as protection and enhancement of the ancient temples’ settings’.

“This neither protects nor enhances the settings of the temples. The only development allowed in the buffer zone is redevelopment of existing structures, which is clearly not the case here. Therefore, we humbly suggest that, until the law changes, it is the duty of all to respect it.”