The Planning Authority Board today voted to approve a controversial Luqa fuel station, despite indicating in a previous sitting that they would turn it down.
Seven board members voted in favour of the application, with four voting against. The four who voted against were Annick Bonello, Marthese Portelli, Victor Asciak and Vince Cassar.
During the original board meeting on the proposed station, activists took over part of the Planning Authority meeting with placards, speakerphones, chants, banners and music. The meeting had to be suspended and moved to another building before resuming due to the activists. The initial vote ended in a deadlock with the Chairman having the casting vote, resulting in the intention to overturn the Planning Directorate's approval recommendation being shown by the board, thus indicating that the board were likely to refuse the application. The final vote was taken today.
The application, would provide for the relocation of the Savoy petrol station located on Rue d'Argens in Gzira to Outside development Zone land in Luqa. The proposed site lies just off Triq Hal Qormi, Luqa, an arterial road between Qormi and Luqa. The site in question is also located in front of the entrance to the Luqa industrial zone, known as Hal Farrug. The latter is an industrial estate housing a number of small and medium industries. The site is irregularly shaped and surrounded with a rubble wall around the perimeter of two fields.
The case officer's report reads that the proposed works include: Car wash and drying areas; Pumping station; Tyre service garage; Class 4B Shop (on two floors); VRT Garage; LPG tank; Electrical vehicle charging point; ATM facility; and car parking spaces. Lightweight canopies are being proposed as to cover the fuelling, the car wash and the drying areas.
In their reasons for showing an intention to overturn the case officer's grant recommendation during the last hearing a few weeks ago, the board members listed that the size of the proposed station site is larger than 3,000 square metres, that the proposal runs counter to certain SPED policies, that the proposal is premature since the Fuel Stations policy is currently under review, and among other things, also listed "the allegations of collusion between the Authority and the developers made in the note circulated to the members by the Moviment Graffiti and Kamp Emergenza Ambjent."
This morning, representatives of nine NGOs called for the refusal of the application, stating that "if the Planning Authority approves plans for a new fuel station in Luqa, it will be an admission that the authority is only there to serve a few developers." Representatives from Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar, Din l-Art Ħelwa, Ramblers Association, Moviment Graffitti, BirdLife Malta, Friends of the Earth (Malta), Żminijietna, Nature Trust (Malta) and Kamp Emerġenza Ambjent showed a united front before the decision, arguing that the PA should refuse this application.
They argued that the ERA had said it was against this station, adding that the board members already voted against, thus meaning that this second final vote, should go the same way. The NGOs also mentioned that the final decision on this station was already postponed once, on the same day to other stations were refused, highlighting that they hoped this was not a tactic used to reduce public anger at the situation.
The applicant, in today's sitting, gave his response t the board's initial reasons for refusal, and argued that the application does not run counter to SPED policies. He stressed that where concerns about contaminations and spillages were addressed through a number of reports.
He also argued that his application is 3,000 sqm, and could not understand this initial indicative reason for refusal.
The architect said that the lawyers are looking into the reason given, that "The proposal is premature since the Fuel Stations policy is currently under review."
The applicant's lawyer spoke about these two points. He said that under the old law the government could issue a moratorium till new laws are implemented, but said this possibility is not included in the new law. The faculty to suspend is given to the applicant, who can request it if the new law will affect him positively, the lawyer said.
The argument that it is premature does not have a legal basis, he said, adding that the Court of Appeal confirmed that when an application is being considered the policy at that time must be considered. He said that today's application must be weighed on today's policy, and that future possible changes to the law must not be given any consideration.
As per the reason for refusal which read "The proposal is premature since the Fuel Stations policy is currently under review," the architect said he even things this was illegal.
The applicant's lawyer, on this point, said that the board's competence is based on planning issues, and that the courts have their own competence. "Our law contemplates that when there is collusion, there are specific crimes. This does not fall in the context of this board's competence. There is a specific authority where one can go and report the allegation there, which would be dealt with by the competent board or court."
He said that this board does not have the power to suspend an application because of this allegation. "Can you imagine what would happen, everyone who doesn't want an application to pass would just come here and allege collusion."
Andre Callus from Moviment Graffiti highlighted that one cannot relocate a fuel station if the fuel station is not currently used. He highlighted a statement made by PA Executive Chairman Johann Buttigieg during a debate on a Mosta fuel station, who had said in that application that the petrol station meant to be relocated is no longer in existence, and thus cannot be considered a relocation according to policy. He had said in the Mosta application that for a station to be relocated it must be active today.
Callus continued, "I hope he makes the same argument in this case as well, that the petrol pump that is meant to be relocated hasn't been used for a long time. So much so that the owner of this application bought that station after he filed this application. It is the exact same situation."
Callus also highlighted that one of the board members who had indicated they would vote against last time was not present. Chairman Vince Cassar said the board member in question was abroad.
Buttigieg said that this proposal doesn't technically need a relocation as its opposite an industrial zone and would qualify even without the relocation according to the policy. He also said that the station still exists, as opposed to the other case in Mosta.
A Qrendi resident, objected, and said that one can find nine stations on his way to work already, highlighting that no more stations are needed.
Another member of the public said that Jason Azzopardi had said in Parliament that revisions in policy were grounds for refusal. The applicant's lawyer said that under the previous law it was possible, but not under the new law. PA Executive Chairperson Johann Buttigieg said that this application is completely in line with policy, but said the board can disagree with the directorate.
A DLH representative said that the proposal is unjustifiable, taking up so much ODZ land.
from The Malta Independent https://ift.tt/2Jgvgtb
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment