An appeal has been filed in court against a decision to more than double the size of an approved fuel station in Marsascala, just across the road from the Family Park.
The Environment and Planning Tribunal last month approved an additional 1,200 square metres of agricultural land to include an enlarged retail outlet, larger offices, four massive garages, including a VRT centre, panel beating and mechanic services, as well as a larger area next to a previously approved car wash.
In the appeal, a resident and registered objector, backed by Moviment Graffitti, argued that the tribunal ignored the local plans to award the permit and had decided to destroy more agricultural land in the process.
The appellants argued the proposed development runs counter to the provisions of the Rural Policy & Design Guidance in that the works entail the removal of soil within an agricultural area. Furthermore, the proposed development is not a use essential for agriculture and, therefore, runs counter to South Malta Local Plan.
The approval was flagged by ADPD, with election candidate Brian Decelis saying that the permit was granted when it could least be noticed, in the middle of an electoral campaign. He said the extension was “double the size” of what residents had strongly objected to in 2019.
The station was located across the road from the Family Park, a favourite area of relaxation for people in the south, Decelis added.
Both the Planning Authority and the Environment and Resources Authority had objected to this expansion for various reasons, including breach of the fuel stations policy and an excessive increase of land area for the development.
The ERA had insisted that “there is no further justification for the further loss of rural land and associated environmental impacts to accommodate such extension for commercial use”.
It is also argued that the location of the station will impede the flow of traffic in and out of Marsascala as well as for those who want to visit the park.
The appellants said that despite the objections of both the ERA and the Agriculture Advisory Committee, which objected to the development taking up so much agricultural land outside the development zone, the tribunal ignored expert opinions without explaining why they were being discarded.
The appeal was signed by lawyer Claire Bonello.