Planning Commission chairman excludes relocation of Marsaxlokk historical tower to ODZ site

The Marsaxlokk Local Council’s proposal to relocate a historical watchtower to an outside development zone (ODZ) location 70 metres away cannot be considered an option, according to Planning Commission chairman Martin Camilleri.

The council wants to relocate the tower to make way for a new road, which it deems essential for the locality.

During a meeting held this morning, the Planning Commission gave the council six weeks to present new plans that could still involve disassembling and reconstructing the historical tower a few metres away on the same plot of land where it is currently located. This relocation option, rather than moving it to the ODZ site, was suggested by the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage.

In its latest submission, the Superintendence emphasised the historical and cultural significance of the tower and reiterated its position that the tower should remain in its current location. Nevertheless, in cases of “overriding planning policies and infrastructure requirements,” the SCH proposed that the historical structure be relocated within the same field boundary at the interface with Triq tax-Xerriek.

The watchtower is currently located in the countryside off the Kavallerizza area of Marsaxlokk, on land that was still classified as ODZ until it was added to the development zone in 2006. The local plan also includes a proposal for a new road passing through the current location of the tower and the surrounding countryside, which was also included in the development zone in 2006. Environmentalists fear that the new road will pave the way for development in this relatively pristine area, as recently happened in Dingli, where development is now being proposed along a new road passing next to a medieval chapel.

During Friday's meeting, architect Robert Grech represented the local council and initially demanded that the Planning Authority simply approve the “dismantlement” of the tower and grant the council more time to identify a new location for it. However, this request was immediately rejected by Martin Camilleri, who made it clear that the Planning Authority cannot approve the dismantlement of the historical structure without knowing where it will be relocated.

Camilleri also noted that both the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) and the SCH opposed the council's proposed new location for the tower. It was Camilleri who then suggested that the council present plans to relocate the tower to the location proposed by the SCH.

Grech reluctantly accepted the suggestion, although he expressed skepticism, noting that the land identified by the SCH for the relocation is still privately owned, as only the land designated for the new road has been expropriated. However, environmentalists and heritage activists attending the meeting are not keen on seeing a historical structure moved to make way for a road that would pass through agricultural and natural land.

Archaeologist Rueben Grima noted that the SCH was “very clear” in stating that the tower should ideally remain in its current location and that its relocation should only be considered as “a last resort.” While acknowledging that the road passing through the location of the tower has already been approved, Grima insisted that this decision is not final and can be changed through a zoning application that identifies an alternative route for the road.

Archaeologist Patricia Camilleri pointed out that the protection of historical assets should be a central consideration in planning infrastructure and questioned the level of awareness when the road was originally proposed. Annick Bonello from Nature Trust also expressed concern about the impact of the new road on the surrounding countryside, noting that the historical monuments in the area are interconnected with the surrounding landscape.

“The historical fabric and nature go hand in hand…everything is linked. Why don’t you explore alternatives to keep the structure on site? Where can we propose alternatives to the proposed road?” she asked.

However, the Commission chairman insisted that it is not within his remit to change the routes of proposed roads, adding that he is bound to respect the current zoning. He gave the local council six weeks to present new plans for the relocation of the tower to the nearby location proposed by the SCH.

The Heritage Value of the Barumbara Tower

The building is a tower-like structure described as a barumbara (pigeon loft), which, according to the SCH, originally served as “a rural watchtower.” The structure also has historical and contextual value, being just 33 metres away from the scheduled Torri tal-Kavallerizza area.

“Together, the Barumbara, the Torri Kavallerizza, and other rural vernacular structures in the area form a nucleus of architectural, historic, and contextual significance that should be retained and enhanced,” stated the Superintendence when faced with the application four years ago. According to the SCH, the building merits scheduling at Grade 2, which would protect it from demolition.

The relocation of historical monuments runs counter to international charters, such as the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter of 1964), which states that “a monument is inseparable from the history to which it bears witness and from the setting in which it occurs. The moving of all or part of a monument cannot be allowed except where the safeguarding of that monument demands it or where it is justified by national or international interest of paramount importance.”