A proposed fuel station on Triq tal-Balal in Iklin has been recommended for refusal for a second time, with the Planning Board planning to hear the application on Thursday.

The applicant is seeking permission for the construction of a fuel station and ancillary facilities. The proposal includes the construction of a car washing facility and drying areas, filling points, a service station (Shop), a tyre service garage, parking spaces, underground fuel tanks and an ATM facility.

The site chosen for this application is just down the road from an existing fuel station on the other side of the road, and is located outside the development zone. A PA report reads that the land under consideration for the application has been abandoned, but was illegally used for the parking of vehicles.

The application had been refused by the PA Board back in 2018, but has seen a series of appeals made. The Planning Authority, in its original decision, had said that the proposed fuel station runs counter to the Fuel Service Stations Policy 2015, stating that fuel stations on the opposite side of the road from an existing fuel station may be considered only if it can be demonstrated that traffic on the opposite lane from the existing fuel station cannot easily access it. "The site under consideration is less than 500 metres from an existing service station which serves traffic moving in both direction," the decision read.

The applicant appealed the decision. The case went to the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT), which had originally agreed with the Planning Authority's decision. An appeal was filed before the courts, which ordered the EPRT's decision to be revoked, and for it to reconsider the case.

Among other things, the EPRT in its reconsideration noted that testimony from a Transport Malta representative confirmed that the road in question is now a two-lane dual carriage way on both sides, with a physical segregation in the middle consisting of concrete barriers, and that a right hand turn that was present when the road was a single carriageway to the existing fuel station cannot be done today. Regarding whether the concrete barrier is a permanent or temporary installation, the Transport Malta official said that Infrastructure Malta, who the witness said is responsible for design of the road construction, informed them that there is no intention to change the road or its configuration.

The EPRT noted, however, that existing plans of approved applications show a right hand turn to the existing station and also said that the setup of the road is actually under the responsibility of Transport Malta, not Infrastructure Malta, and that the testimony was insufficient to ensure that the concrete barriers are of a permanent nature.

The EPRT then sent the case back to the Planning Authority to reconsider, to the stage prior to the issuing of a case officer's report so that all the verifications from the entities concerned regarding the actual state of the road can be made.

Another appeal was filed before the court. Here the court decided to amend the EPRT decision, confirming that the case be sent back to the Planning Authority for consideration, but that the authority has to consider the application on the basis of the Policy Guidance for Fuel Stations 2020.

A new case officer's report was then drafted, and the application is expected to go before the Planning Authority Board on Thursday. Both the Iklin and Gharghur local councils had objected to the fuel station application.

The Case Officer found that the proposed fuel station cannot be recommended in view that it constitutes the construction of a fuel station without relocation of an existing fuel station, which runs counter to criterion 2.1 of the Policy Guidance for Fuel Stations, April 2020. The 2020 policy only allows the relocation of existing fuel stations.

In their report, the case officer notes: "An assessment of the proposal has been carried out in line with the 'Policy Guidance for Fuel Stations'. Criterion 2 sets out the criteria for the assessment of relocated fuel stations, which are followed by the Development Management Directorate's comments." The policy reads: "A new fuel station shall be the relocation of an existing fuel station only. No new fuel stations will be permitted unless they will result in the relocation of an existing fuel station, which is deemed to create issues of amenity, and/or safety and/or transport (in line with another part of the same policy) from the development zone."

The case officer noted that the proposal consists in the construction of a new fuel station without the relocation of an existing fuel station, saying it goes against policy.

The officer also said 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. ERA's consistent position has been that there is no valid justification for the further loss of undeveloped land outside the development zone boundary, along with the associated impacts on the rural environment and landscape to accommodate such use."

It also states, among other things, that the site within which the fuel station is proposed to be located is uncommitted land and exceeds a 1000sqm footprint, running counter to another criterion of the Policy Guidance for Fuel Stations 2020.

The case officer recommended that the application be refused.