Malta’s ambassador at Unesco has so far failed to explain its “strange” position in defending a development permit close to a World Heritage site in Mġarr.

Last October, following a controversy which erupted after the granting of a development permit by Mepa for the building of a villa a few metres away from the megalithic temples, the ambassador, Mgr Joe Vella Gauci, issued a statement criticising Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar and defending the permit.

He said it would have no impact on the status of Ta’ Ħaġrat Temples with Unesco.

Pressure by various institutions, including pro-environment lobby groups, a parliamentary motion by the Nationalist Party and criticism by Labour’s deputy leader Toni Abela, pushed the government to intervene and order the withdrawal of the development permit and the expropriation of the land involved to defend the heritage site.

Asked for a reaction to the government’s decision and to explain why his office did not feel the need to object about the proposed development, Mgr Vella Gauci failed to reply to questions.

Despite various reminders, no replies were forthcoming even though he promised to do so.

“Kindly note that I am attending and participating in an international conference and I will ­­­­­reply at the earliest availability possible,” he told this newspaper three weeks ago.

Despite reminders, Mgr Vella Gauci still did not reply.

Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar criticised the position taken by the ambassador’s office.

We would have expected the ambassador to be the first one to defend the megalithic temples

“We would have expected the ambassador to be the first one to defend the megalithic temples from a development which would have had a negative impact on the Unesco world heritage site,” a spokeswoman said.

“We found it very strange that, instead, Mgr Vella Gauci issued a statement defending the development. At least, the government realised that this site should be protected,” she added.

In 2009, Mepa had refused a permit to build a villa on the same parcel of land on grounds that it would be too close to the temples. However, the permit was issued in September following changes to the plans.

The permit has now been dropped and the land owners are expected to be compensated.