Planning Authority approves Xwejni horse in the face of multiple objections

The Planning Authority today approved the Gozo Ministry’s application to situate an abstract, five-metre-high equestrian monument on the otherwise untouched coastline of Xwejni Gozo.

The €250,000 monument being created by Austin Camilleri has been met with objections from the regulatory authorities including the Environment and Resources Authority, the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage and the PA’s own Design Advisory Committee.

They suggested that once the statue has been commissioned and public funds have already been spent on it, another location in a more urban setting ought to be considered. But the suggestion was ignored by the ministry and artist, which insisted on the Xwejni setting.

The Planning Authority gave its stamp of approval to the installation and its proposed location, which has been met with emotions ranging from ridicule to alarm from the public, with three votes in favour and none against.

It has also imposed a few caveats.

One is a PA condition providing that “in the eventuality that a decision is taken to remove the approved public structure from the said location, the location is to be immediately reinstated to its original state at the applicant’s expense”.

Apart from the fact that the statue has been deemed by experts as “incompatible” with the location, its installation will also involve digging into untouched rock and inserting concrete piles deep into the ground, which may cause further damage to the unique location.

Along such lines, the site’s architect has been ordered to submit a Works Method Statement detailing the work being proposed and any mitigation measures to be taken within 15 days.

The use of any external lighting has also been excluded.

The ministry’s proposal has proved unpopular with many Gozitans, frequenters of the Xwejni area and the owners of the nearby saltpans.

It has also drawn objections from BirdLife Malta, whose fears the structure would be lit up at night would have had a negative impact on Wied il-Mielaħ u l-Inħawi tal-Madwar Natura 2000 site have now been allayed.

But the problem goes further than that, according to BirdLife.

“Where will the buck stop with development concessions?” it asked in a recent public social media post. “The applicant has failed to justify why out of all available the coastline in urban areas, this site within a Natura 2000 site had to be particularly selected. Our concerns are pretty much that this is the start of a roller coaster of ‘acceptable’ developments within ODZs.”

Camilleri is being paid handsomely to turn his ‘Wiehed’ six-legged abstract equestrian vision into a new Gozo landmark. But the prospect of making it a ‘landmark’ is what is concerning objectors, who fear more people will be attracted to the remote coastal area – damaging the untouched environment and the centuries-old saltpans that are still being worked.

Objections ignored

The PA approved the ministry’s application despite objections from its Design Advisory Committee, the Environmental and Resources Authority and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage.

The PA’s Design Advisory Committee said, “While appreciating the artistic qualities of the design of the sculpture, (the DAC) is however of the opinion that given the pristine location of the site in question, it should be relocated to a more urban section of the coast, or even inland.”

ERA had come out even more forcefully, noting the site in question forms part of a protected Natura 2000 site and a Special Conservation Area and Special Protection Area.

According to the ERA, the proposed monument “is considered out of context and incompatible with the natural surroundings and the pristine coastal landscape”.

Moreover, the ERA also labelled it as “objectionable from an environmental point of view”.

The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage was of a similar opinion and twice reiterated that “the site of the proposed development is located within a very prominent location with unobstructed views of a surrounding pristine landscape.

“The proposed installation would be an incompatible addition to the surrounding natural, rural and cultural landscape”.