Case Study: Monitoring of works at St John’s Co-Cathedral

Case Study: Monitoring of works at St John’s Co-Cathedral

Published February 26, 2025

The complaint

The Commissioner for Environment and Planning has investigated claims made in an online article regarding damage to St. John’s Co-Cathedral, specifically in the Bartolott Crypt.  The article alleges that a newly installed floor collapsed, causing significant damage to the historic resting place of the Knights of the Order of St. John.  Additionally, the report suggests that the raised flooring structure is too heavy for the underground chamber and that the issue remains unresolved.

The Investigation

Although the complaint also named the St. John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation and the Planning Authority, this investigation focused specifically on allegations of mismanagement by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage.  The complaint did not involve any breaches of the Development Planning Act, and the Foundation does not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.  Nonetheless, the Foundation fully cooperated throughout the investigation.

An image accompanying the article shows a number of flagstones uplifted from the floor and resting against the raised floor steel frame structure.  Another image shows three cracked flagstones in place under the steel frame.  Heaps of gravel can also be seen on the sides adjoining the walls of the crypt.

This investigation included a site inspection in the Bartolott Crypt.  During this inspection, the raised floor steel structure and all the flagstones were in place and the sides were clean of any gravel.  Neither the images in the news article, nor the investigation reveals any concerns that the new floor caved in, that any damage was caused to the underground chambers or that interventions are required to restore any damage.  The installation of the raised floor followed surveys of the foundations and works methods specifically intended to prevent any damage.

The removal and reinstatement of the flagstones that had subsided was carried out in line with the approved Works Method Statement and all the flagstones that were reinstated were adequately recorded on plan for future reference.

The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage is properly and regularly monitoring the works in line with the permit conditions and there is no reason to doubt that the works that were carried out in the Bartolott Crypt at the St John’s Co-Cathedral did in some way or another not follow proper administrative procedures.

Conclusions

The complaint alleging damages to the Bartolott Crypt and contributions to the same by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage are found not to be sustained.