MEPA overrules heritage superintendence over pool in archaeological site

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority has removed a condition stipulating prior approval from the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, for the development of a swimming pool in the archaeologically sensitive area in Mgarr.

The condition was imposed because the proposed pool will be located in a Class A area of archaeological importance. 

The pool off Triq il-Konkors Teatrali, proposed by Pio Chetcuti, was originally approved in January by MEPA against the advice of the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage, the Environment Protection Directorate and the Planning Directorate.

The Superintendence warned MEPA back in October 2015 that the proposed pool was in the “immediate vicinity” of documented archaeological remains consisting of tombs, cart ruts, a rubble wall including megalithic boulders, and possible traces of ancient quarrying activities.

It warned that the development would impinge negatively on the “cultural landscape” and serve as a precedent resulting in an “urban sprawl” through the development of more pools and decks in the area, “detaching the archaeological features from their setting” and possibly “jeopardise their preservation.”

The Superintendence recommended that the area be “kept free from development.”

The case officer had also recommended refusal of this permit, arguing that the rural development policy approved in 2014 does not consider archaeologically sensitive areas as “appropriate locations” for swimming pools.

According to the policy, sites of archaeological importance “are in principle considered inappropriate locations”, unless it can be duly demonstrated through the necessary assessment, that the development does not compromise the site scheduling characteristics.

It is difficult to find a more convoluted situation: because although the development was fully approved, the permit included a clause stating that before works start, the applicant was required to submit a copy of approval from the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage. Which effectively meant that MEPA had thrown the ball back in the court of the Superintendence after blatantly disregarding the Superintendence’s advice by issuing the permit. 

Three months after issuing the conditional permit, the same MEPA board has now again rebuffed the Superintendence and the Planning Directorate. In its report the Planning Directorate insisted that only the Superintendence could monitor conditions for archaeological investigations.

But the architect for the pool application argued with logic that since the Superintendence had already objected to the application before it was approved, it could not be expected to issue its clearance now. So, to make the objectionable permissible, the architect called on MEPA to change this condition to enable the developer to hire a private firm to carry out the required archaeological monitoring, as he claimed had happened in nearby sites included in the 2006 extension of building boundaries.

But the case officer replied that archaeological monitoring in sensitive areas can only be carried out by the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage, as required by the Cultural Heritage Act of 2002, and only after clearance issued by the Superintendence. The case officer insisted that the request made by the developer’s architect should be refused.

But the board, apparently solidly determined to oblige the applicant, ignored the recommendation to retain the clause requiring approval by the Superintendence for any works on site. So it decreed that details of an archaeological monitor chosen from an approved list of consultants should be submitted to the Superintendence “15 days before the commencement of works”.

The developer is also bound to report any archaeological findings to the Superintendence.