Heritage row over military sites and transparency 

The Gibraltar Government and the GSD have traded criticism over the condition and management of Gibraltar’s WWII defence structures, with the Government defending its heritage work as part of a wider conservation strategy and the Opposition accusing it of neglect, mismanagement and a lack of transparency over related contracts and spending.  

The row flared up after the Government announced that it had completed a project to catalogue WWII structures, something the GSD said had served to highlight their “obvious state of abandonment”. 

The Government said the GSD’s comments showed “a fundamental misunderstanding” of the realities involved in conserving 20th century military heritage, arguing that cataloguing the defensive structures was an important first step towards their long-term protection, management and phased conservation.  

The Government said that many of the sites had been inherited in varying states of deterioration and abandonment, and that a number had never previously been systematically recorded, mapped or publicly interpreted.  

It added that many wartime defensive positions had been built rapidly using lower-grade wartime materials and had since been exposed to more than 80 years to Gibraltar’s coastal conditions, making them vulnerable to structural decay, corrosion and vegetation growth.  

The Government said documentation was itself an internationally recognised heritage preservation measure and described the project as the first coherent and systematic record of Gibraltar’s wartime defensive landscape, adding that the work would support future educational projects, heritage trails, interpretation panels and public engagement.  

It also said not every structure could realistically or safely be restored to museum condition, particularly where sites were located on cliff faces, exposed coastlines or in inaccessible areas.  

The statement also pointed to broader heritage work, including projects linked to the WWII Tunnels, the City Under Siege Exhibition, the Moorish Castle, the Northern Defences, interpretation panels across Gibraltar, and the continuing development of Gibraltar’s Heritage Environment Record.  

Responding to GSD criticism of the 9.2-inch gun at Europa Point, it said the asset had been removed from what was “effectively a rubbish dump environment” and that work was under way to assess the possibility of relocating it back to Levant Battery.  

“The GSD once again attempts to reduce complex heritage management issues into simplistic political soundbites,” said Heritage Minister Dr John Cortes. 

“The reality is that more work is currently being undertaken in the field of heritage protection, research, conservation, interpretation, and public accessibility than ever before.” 

“The cataloguing of Gibraltar’s WWII defensive landscape is itself a major achievement and forms part of a wider long-term strategy to ensure that these important historical assets are properly understood, protected, and appreciated by future generations.” 

“The GSD is simply out of its depth in understanding heritage management as in so much else.”  

But the Government’s defence of its approach to the WWII sites drew another salvo from the Opposition, which called for “greater humility” over what it described as the “embarrassing state” of the structures.  

The Opposition said the Government’s description of its military asset inventory as “a first step” suggested that a comprehensive assessment and maintenance programme had not previously been in place, leading to what it said was a legitimate conclusion that the sites had been abandoned for years.  

The GSD also challenged the Government’s position on the 9.2-inch gun, saying it had not been rescued but instead moved “from a scrap yard to an exposed area where it lies abandoned and rusting away in full view of everyone”.  

It further called for more information on public spending and contractual arrangements linked to heritage and site management, including annual payments and any revenue-sharing agreements tied to tourist receipts.  

It cited the £1.4m paid annually on a contract with a private company when the sites managed such as Parsons Lodge and Stay Behind Cave are “underutilised” for residents and visitors to enjoy.  

“These, like the WWII defence structures, are sites which have huge heritage and touristic potential but are being ignored despite the significant annual expenditure,” the Opposition said.  

It also called for a detailed breakdown of the arrangements under which an estimated £6m is expected to be paid in 2025/2026 to “Sites Management Systems” in connection with Upper Rock entry fees. 

“As with the move of Government departments to privately owned properties these further Government-private commercial arrangements raise legitimate questions which impact on our public finances and ought to be the subject of full transparency and accountability,” said GSD MP Damon Bossino.