The planning authority appeals board has rejected an appeal by transport operator Arriva to build a huge bus depot in protected agricultural land in Żebbuġ, saying the project breached planning policies.
The board can’t understand why the authorities didn’t think about this infrastructure before the reform
However, the recommendation to refuse the depot should have been raised during the application’s screening process and not left to the end when it was refused by the Mepa board, the appeals board said.
Described by Arriva managing director Keith Bastow as “crucial”, the project had been recommended for approval but was turned down in May, because the chosen site was outside scheme and “there was not enough justification to use as a bus depot”.
In a decision handed down on Thursday, the appeals board said it was “amazed” how the case officer had recommended the project for approval but then the planning authority, at appeal stage, had called for its refusal – especially since the project went against the area’s policies.
Arriva had planned to build two depots, one in Malta and one in Xewkija, for the regular and heavy maintenance of buses and chose the Żebbuġ site, which covers 9,116 square metres, because it was central to its operations and close to the main roads. But the appeals board said it had “serious doubts” about Żebbuġ only being used as a depot – especially after Arriva had said the maintenance of all the buses would be done in Malta.
“The board can’t understand why the authorities, when the transport reform was launched, didn’t think about this infrastructure before the reform,” it said.
The project had originally been recommended for approval because it fell under the open storage policy, which allows 10 per cent of plots to be built up if located outside scheme but close to industrial areas.
However, the board pointed out that open storage policy only covered parking and storage of buses, while Arriva’s application clearly included offices, stores and a servicing maintenance shed.
Also, the plot of land, used to grow vegetables, was surrounded by scheduled fields and was not close to an industrial zone.
The appeals board said it “could not understand” the case officer’s “somewhat confusing” recommendation to save and reuse the soil while saying the land was not good for agricultural use.
The Żebbuġ site would only take around 20 per cent of Arriva buses on the road, meaning there might be plans for similar depots, the board said.
It queried why Arriva was not requested by Mepa to identify all possible sites to eventually draw up a master plan to avoid a piecemeal approach.
“It is clear the development would have extended much further had the environment protection unit not intervened. It would be wiser if Arriva had put all its cards on the table and a public consultation took place through environment studies,” the appeals board said.
“Surely there are other central areas for this development without further damaging the environment.”
It also questioned statements, not backed up by Arriva, that other sites were limited and that it could not build the depot in industrial parks. “The board can’t understand how a project of national importance doesn’t find the support of a government agency obliged to run industrial zones,” it said.
A spokesman for Arriva said the company had another “engineering base which is working well” which it would continue to use. Operations “are unaffected and there is no impact on the services we provide”.
“We will make a decision about longer term arrangements in due course with our partners, Tumas Group, who are responsible for the property needs of Arriva Malta,” the spokesman said.
She pointed out that the company had a number of meetings with the planning authority and had been led to believe there were no issues with the application and that it would be approved.