A coalition of Gozitan heritage NGOs has hit out at Shadow Minister for Gozo Alex Borg over what they claim are repeated false and misleading claims about the controversial Phase 3 development at Fort Chambray.

In a strongly worded statement, the Coalition for Gozo – made up of Din l-Art Ħelwa Għawdex, Għawdix, and Wirt Għawdex – accused Borg of promoting the dense housing and serviced apartment project while misrepresenting key facts across social media, podcasts, and TV appearances.

The project includes 155 residential and serviced units set within the historic 18th-century fortification, as well as the demolition of the only Victorian-era British Barracks in Gozo – a structure built in the 1890s.

According to the Coalition, Dr Borg’s most recent podcast appearance was filled with historical inaccuracies and misleading interpretations of the parliamentary concession for the site.

They also took issue with statements made by the podcast host, including a completely incorrect claim that the Għajn Tuffieħa Knights’ watchtower had been dismantled and rebuilt.

Among the claims the Coalition refutes:

Fort Chambray being described as a “holiday retreat” used by the Order of St John. In reality, it was planned as a fortified city, which never fully materialised.

The claim that Fort Chambray was built in the 1800s, when construction in fact began in 1749 under the Knights.

The suggestion that the public will have guaranteed access to the fort. The contract explicitly states there is no obligation to allow public access.

Talk of restoring the fort’s ditch and opening it to the public – something not mentioned in any official documents.

A claim that the British Barracks will be “relocated” rather than demolished. Plans show 84% of the structure will be lost, with only a portion potentially reconstructed elsewhere on site.

The NGOs also defended themselves against claims made by Borg, including the suggestion that Wirt Għawdex was involved in relocating a historic tower – which was in fact Dar il-Gvernatur, and not a tower at all. The relocation was handled by the Ministry for Gozo due to safety concerns, with Wirt Għawdex only taking over the building years later.

Another concern raised was over who will fund restoration works at Fort Chambray. According to the contract, developers have no obligation to carry out further repairs – and if they do, they will be reimbursed by the government. This, the NGOs argue, contradicts Borg’s statements that the developers will shoulder these costs.

The Coalition also criticised the idea that the new development fits the original “vision” for Chambray, pointing out that the proposed buildings would occupy nearly all the remaining open space within the fort.

“Regrettably, due to the persistent nature of these statements, segments of the public have begun to accept them as fact,” the statement reads.

The Coalition said it had no desire to engage in political back-and-forth, but felt compelled to speak out in light of “unfounded accusations” and “outright falsehoods” being circulated about the project and the NGOs involved.

“We remain committed solely to the preservation of the natural and built heritage of our beloved island of Gozo,” the statement concluded.

In response, the Partit Nazzjonalista issued a statement rejecting what it described as a campaign of “false, misleading and entirely incorrect accusations” against Alex Borg.

The PN argued that the Fort Chambray concession was unanimously approved by both sides of Parliament, and said that Borg’s support for development had been misrepresented as unconditional approval.

They said that references made by Borg to public access and restoration efforts were aspirational and part of a broader vision for the site’s potential as a publicly beneficial space — not claims based on legal obligations.

The PN also said that the planned relocation of the British Barracks is being professionally handled, in line with similar heritage practices in other parts of Malta and Gozo. They maintained that Borg never denied the importance of heritage protection, and had suggested public-private partnerships as one way to finance restoration.

While condemning what they described as personal attacks and distortions, the PN invited stakeholders to return to constructive dialogue and focus on the shared goal of safeguarding Gozo’s historical legacy.

What do you make of this?