Environment Minister Jose Herrera has asked the Environment and Resources Authority to review the 2015 Fuel Stations Policy and come up with proposals on how to improve it.
While we could say that this is a clear admission that the controversial policy is flawed we will congratulate the minister for having the courage to acknowledge that the 2015 regulations, which deal with the relocation of fuel stations from urban areas to rural zones, needs revising.
Herrera acknowledged that while the policy was aimed at protecting people, the situation needs to be put into perspective and the policy needs to be re-addressed.
The decision comes after harsh criticism that was directed at the Planning Authority after it approved yet another fuel station on ODZ land in Marsascala. There are currently applications for new fuel stations in Mgarr and Birzebbuga while the application for another service station in Gharghur is going through the works.
The ministry yesterday conceded that, while these applications were in line with existing policy, they “could be objectionable because of the significant concern regarding the cumulative environmental impact caused by the policy framework for fuel service stations.” The proposals have to reflect the existing challenges and burden such developments are posing on agricultural, or ecologically important land, it said.
We hope that the proposals include a capping on the number of fuel stations allowed on this tiny nation of 410,000 inhabitants.
The call for a revision to the controversial policy is very welcome indeed, but it does not put our minds to rest where the environment is concerned.
Lately it was revealed that a parcel of land that lies outside the development zone (ODZ) in San Pawl tat-Targa, known as Tal-Wej, has been put up for sale with a price tag of €1.8 million on the premise that the land will soon be included in the next rationalization exercise.
The Planning Authority has so far failed to react to the reports, which have raised several questions.
For a start this is the first time we have heard about an upcoming rationalization exercise. The country cannot afford to sacrifice any more of its dwindling green areas to construction. After all, this was the reasoning behind the shift to high rise.
The Planning Authority owes us an explanation. Is it true that more pristine land be taken up to accommodate the ever growing construction lobby? Which areas will we lose next to the growing concrete jungle?
As one of our staff remarked this week, Malta will soon become one big city. Anyone who frequently travels by air will have noticed how the green areas keep getting smaller and the grey ones bigger.
Also, if it is true that the owners of the land in question know about such an upcoming rationalization exercise, it would most likely mean that someone on the inside has tipped them off. If that is the case then there should be an investigation.
Another negative development yesterday was the approval of plans which will see the Mercury House high rise project extended to 31 floors. As such we are not against the concept of high rise, especially in view of the lack of land in this country. But we believe that high rise projects should be respectful of the surrounding environment. Most of all, we find it difficult to understand how the PA could approve a high rise building in the absence of a master plan for Paceville.
Only three people, including PA chairman Vince Cassar, had the courage to vote against the project on these merits
PA CEO Johann Buttigieg said a tender for the master plan has been drafted and is being reviewed by the Department of Contracts.
If this is the case and the master plan will be ready soon than there was more reason for the PA to postpone its decision and only decide on the Mercury House application after the master plan is out, thus ensuring that it is in line with the same policy.