The Planning Review Tribunal on Thursday dismissed an appeal by Moviment Graffitti seeking revocation of a Planning Authority permit for a fuel station on a site outside the development zone in Burmarrad.

The tribunal found that the Planning Authority's decision was in line with existing policies.

The permit was sought by Bonnici Stores for the transfer of a kerbside fuel station to an ODZ field. The new station was to feature filling facilities, a car wash, office and servicing garage.  

The PA controversially approved the permit in 2019.

At the time, the Environment Protection Directorate warned that the development was not simply a relocation to a safer location "but a major expansion ODZ with rather extravagant land take-up”.

Four of the Board’s members voted against the application, and seven voted in favour.

In their appeal, Moviment Graffitti argued that the Planning Board violated legal standards and ignored planning policies. The board also violated the principle of "equality of arms," by giving the developer's representatives far more time to present their case while objections were not adequately recorded or addressed during the hearings.

The Tribunal dismissed these claims, stating that all parties had a fair opportunity to present their arguments and that the hearing process adhered to legal standards.

Graffitti also argued that the development did not adhere to the Fuel Service Stations Policy, claiming the site did not meet the criteria, exceeded size limits, and was good agricultural land, in violation of relevant policies.

The group also claimed that the development violated other policies, including the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development, Rural Policy and Design Guidance, the National Agricultural Policy, and the North West Local Plan.

Graffitti said the project failed to protect agricultural land, disregarded soil conservation, and violated guidelines for development outside urban areas and retail use in rural zones.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the application complied with policy requirements, noting that the site’s footprint had been reduced and that mitigation measures, including landscaping, were sufficient to address environmental concerns.

The Tribunal allowed the development to proceed with additional conditions including measures to reduce the project’s environmental impact, an Environmental Protection Statement (EPS), ensuring that excavation impacts are minimised, and that an environmental permit from the Environment and Resources Authority is obtained.