Upset about the Manikata chapel? Curia, heritage watchdog dropped objections to the flats in 2018

A photo published on the church’s news portal Newsbook of the old Manikata chapel dwarfed by a new apartment block has caused outrage on social media.

The photo originally accompanied a news piece announcing that the chapel will start being used again for religious functions after 50 years.

But the photo, showing the sheer contrast between the diminutive rural chapel and the four-storey block of apartments rising next to it went viral with commentators questioning the role of the Planning Authority.

Newsbook also picked on the outrage, publishing a second story on Sunday, highlighting the critical comments sparked by their photo.

But it seems the church outlet missed the irony that back in 2018, when the building permit for the apartment block was being considered, the Curia had dropped its earlier objections to the development. It is unclear what caused the change of heart.

In 2018, MaltaToday had reported a strongly worded objection by an architect on behalf of the Curia in which he warned that the  new building will “overpower” and “engulf” the chapel and the open space around it. The architect had also described the design as being “blank and dull.”

The church had warned the proposed development will be changing the nature of this tranquil area of the hamlet of Manikata and described the proposal as a “bad neighbourhood development”.

However, the case officer report refers to a second letter from the Archdiocese of Malta stating that following changes to plans “it finds no objections to the current proposal.”

Heritage watchdog volte face

A similar volte face was expressed by the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage.

The SCH had originally expressed concern on the demolition of vernacular structures on the site and the “extensive development abutting a significant chapel, which would have a negative impact on views of the chapel and may cause material damage.”

How the Manikata chapel looked before the development next door was given planning permission (Photo from PA case file)

But after analysing a 3-D image of the proposal which was never published on the PA’s public information system, the SCH gave its go-ahead, after concluding that the proposed development will integrate the facade of the old building, while the proposed volumes were “terraced so as to mitigate visual impact on the chapel”.

Independent candidate Arnold Cassola has questioned whether the superintendence was deceived back then, given the scale of the development now.

The Manikata development is in some way symbolic of the planning malaise, where flowery language adopted by case officers to justify a development jars with the final outcome.

The case officer had recommended approval of the new building, describing its design as one which is “harmonious to the context of the streetscape and relates to the overall architectural design and details of the building”.

The development was approved by all three members of the Planning Comission then chaired by Elizabeth Ellul in September 2018 in line with the case officer’s favourable recommendation.

In issuing the permit, the PA did not need any clearance from the SCH or the Curia. But the case officer report refers to the “no objection” of the cultural heritage authority and the withdrawal of the curia’s objection when analyzing the case history.  

The case officer report had largely overlooked the visual impact on the chapel itself, recommending approval in conformity with the local plans and development guidelines issued in 2015 permitting 16m-high development in the area.

The development was approved two years before developers started being obliged to present a more detailed assessment on the visual impact of their proposals on nearby scheduled buildings, including the presentation of photomontages taken from strategic views.  

The site where the development took place was previously occupied by a one storey farm house and lies within a buffer zone for protected tombs, cart-ruts, quarrying, and a silo.

The old chapel is dedicated to St Joseph and was built in the 1920s to serve the small rural community. A larger church, designed by renowned architect Richard England, was built between 1964 and 1974 to accommodate the needs of the growing community.