Protecting visitors from the pounding sun seems to be as important as safeguarding the megalithic temples at Ħaġar Qim and Mnajdra, according to those who voiced their opinion on the tents sheltering the site for conservation purposes.

The shade they created is a major plus and for that reason - but not only - the controversial intervention seems to have gone down well, according to a vox pop on site.

Generally speaking, the tents may be aesthetically displeasing from afar but things change once you get up close and personal and the long-term benefits outweigh the cons. The question, if anything, was: Why was it not done before.

Tourists at Ħaġar Qim yesterday said the high-tech, protective tents did not detract from their experience and even tour guides, familiar with the uncovered version, welcomed them.

Thierry Abbat, a French guide, who has been visiting the temples five times a year for the past three, approved the "contrast between the future and the past".

Speaking in the breeze under the tent, tour guide Monica Kottmann said they might not look great from far but it was "so comfortable under them for us... and for the temples".

A colleague, Maria Attard, said her first impression was that she would have preferred the temples as they used to be before, with the backdrop of the sea and the sky, but she admitted they now had a "special, mystical aura".

"The tents may be an eyesore from a distance but they have not decreased the importance of the temples... For future generations, it was worth it," said the woman, who has been a guide since 1984.

Cruise liner passengers, in Malta for a day, were by no means upset by the tents, claiming it was a "good idea".

German Thomas Bieber said they were the way forward: tourists did not have to walk in the sun and the sea view was not obstructed.

Andy Bartlett from Luton was not bothered by the shelters, welcoming the shade from the warmth he was not used to back home. "It may be a distraction but it does not ruin the experience."

Norwegian Svein Erik Ulverud and Christine Racek from New Jersey both believed in the importance of protecting the site, which, for Mr Ulverud, had been done carefully and well.

Joanne Farrugia Ciantar, a Heritage Malta senior clerk for 17 years, claimed the stone was already "feeling different" plus visitors stayed longer and could appreciate the site better. "Aesthetically, you cannot have it all but once you get close, none of the beauty is lost."

Reuben Grima, senior curator of prehistoric sites, had pointed out that the gradient in the colour of the stone, and even burn marks, could now be made out by the naked eye whereas, before, it was bleached white by the sun.

But the positive comments were not shared by architect Richard England who cannot stomach the tents and even less the visitor centre, which is about to be completed. In his view, covering the temples was "debatable" but he disagreed entirely with the project.

"Approaching this holy ground, the impression is much more of a football stadium than a sacred, ancient temple," Prof. England said.

Not everyone was so vociferous and the employees at the restaurant in the vicinity had no opinion and were unfazed. "I have not been there since I was a child," said the waitress.

Taxi driver Anthony Aquilina and coach driver Alfred Cauchi had no complaints either and considered the tents to be a necessity. Mr Cauchi said they might have gone "to the other extreme but if the only means of conservation is to have a shelter, then they need to be covered".

Nazzarenu Farrugia, the parker of 17 years, had other alternatives, although his advice was not heeded. He claimed linseed oil and another form from prickly pears would have done the trick to preserve the 5,000-year-old temples. "But we got money from the EU, so we used it," he complained.