An application to extend a fuel station on ODZ land in Marsascala is set to be decided by the Planning Authority Board on Thursday.
The proposed amendments include the relocation of restrooms, an extension to a shop, the relocation of an office, the addition of an ATM, of garages, of a new car wash and wiping area and new car parking spaces, among other things.
The site is located on Triq Sant’Antnin, an arterial road which leads from Marsascala to Haz- Zabbar, opposite to the Family Park and Sant’Antnin Waste Treatment Plant, which lies outside the limits to development. The proposed site currently consists of abandoned agricultural land with small ancillary structures within its boundary covering an approximate area of 1200m². It will be developed as part of the fuel station with regards to vehicular access. The site lies within an Agricultural Area.
According to the Environmental assessment, the primary impact of relevance is that the proposed extension will take up an additional 1,200m2 of undeveloped land located outside development zones (ODZ), in addition to the 1,400m2 taken up by the previously approved proposal. “Besides being located on agricultural land, ERA considers that there is no valid justification for the further loss of rural land and associated environmental impacts to accommodate such extension for commercial use. There is also significant concern regarding the piecemeal nature of the proposal, particularly due to the cumulative environmental impact caused by the numerous ad hoc proposals for similar development beyond already-existing committed areas.”
The case officer’s report reads that the “ERA reiterates its objection to the location and the proposed extension of the fuel station in that such land use is not congruent with the ongoing land uses in the context of the present land uses of the area. The overall development/interventions will further commit the entire site and introduce unnecessary and excessive formalisation, and uptake of land at the expense of undeveloped rural land. This is also in the light that, according to the hierarchy set out in the ‘Fuel Service Stations Policy’ Section 3.0, uncommitted sites should be the least favourably considered.”
The report notes that an assessment of the proposal has been carried out in line with the ‘Fuel Service Stations Policy’. “Extension to existing fuel stations are not allowed by the Fuel Service Station Policy, therefore proposal is considered under the criteria in Section 3 of the Fuel Service Stations Policy for new fuel stations without considering relocation of an existing fuel station. Section 3 of the Fuel Service Stations Policy only allows upgrading of existing fuel stations without further land take-up outside development zone.”
It goes on to read that “there is no sufficient justification from a planning and environmental point of view for the proposed new site since it would give rise to unacceptable adverse environmental concerns, particularly since the site is not listed as suitable for a new fuel station.”
The case officer decided that the application is being recommended for refusal since the location of the proposed showroom within the rural area is not justified, whilst not being essential to the agricultural use of the area.
The reasons for the refusal recommendation include that the proposed development runs counter to the provisions of policy; that the proposed development runs counter to Thematic Objective 1.10 and to Rural Objective 4 of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development in terms of land–use, in that the proposal is not considered legitimate or necessary within the rural area; and that the proposed development runs counter to the Fuel Service Stations Policy, among others.