MEPA said it appreciates that Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar agrees that fuel stations need to be relocated outside development zones. This means that the principle to relocate fuel stations from residential areas to outside urban areas is accepted by the NGO hence the adherence to policy Set 12. However, the only suggestion made by FAA during the MEPA Board hearing for the relocation of the fuel station was to construct it in Ta’ Qali, Malta’s National Recreational Park.

All the necessary studies including an EIA and alternative site assessment were carried out and the mitigation measures and precautions resultant from the EIA and requested by the competent authorities, were imposed in the permit. FAA must be aware of this after attending the public hearing. Surprisingly, FAA never submitted any comment to MEPA at any stage of the assessment of the application or at any stage of the process of the EIA, which started in August 2006.

With regard to the refusal for previous applications in the area, these were assessed on the planning policies of the time, as happens in all applications.

In its reply, FAA said that since it was stated by a MEPA spokesperson during the public hearing that the petrol station would fulfil the demand created by the football stadium and the conference centre planned nearby, it would make more sense to site the petrol station close to these two structures, within the Ta’ Qali precincts, rather than some way away and ruining the open countryside in the process.

These structures are at the opposite end to the National Park, beyond the Crafts Village. At no point did FAA refer to the area occupied by the National Park. The chairman’s ludicrous comment that FAA had suggested the petrol station be built next to where children play is regrettably characteristic of the lack of seriousness with which this very important matter was treated by some members of the board.

The “mitigation measures and precautions resultant from the EIA” do not address the issue of carcinogenic hydrocarbons and vehicle emissions polluting runoff water (ie rainwater) in the area and leaching into the aquifer, as the impermeable flooring recommended obviously only covers the petrol station footprint and not its immediate vicinity. Furthermore, Dr Louis Cassar, the biologist on the MEPA Board, also echoed our doubts about the mitigation measures being able to cope with the risk of major spills and voted against the project.

MEPA again resorts to throwing the responsibility for safeguarding the environment onto NGOs who, at the time mentioned, – August 2006, were struggling to cope with the issues of the Rationalisation and Local Plans. The environment NGOs are not the official, paid-up body entrusted with the protection of Malta’s environment. Do we therefore take it that if NGOs do not object, MEPA will not oppose projects such as this, which damage the environment and our quality of life?

As for “the planning policies of the time” of the previous application, it is to be noted that the previously-refused petrol station project referred to, continued to be adjudicated through the Appeal process and the Auditor’s Office until February 2007. As far as we are informed, no new policies pertinent to these cases have been issued since February 2007, therefore the statement of MEPA Board member Dr Joe Brincat who said, “This is a case of two weights and two measures, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”, still stands.