An application for a supermarket on agricultural land in Burmarrad should not only be refused on its own merits but also to discourage further attempts to develop rural areas, the Environment Resources Authority is saying.
Submitted by Bonnici Brothers Ltd, the supermarket is being proposed on a plot of land outside the development zone, located in Triq Burmarrad corner with Triq is-Sardin.
The plot, which has a footprint of 6,870 square metres, is partly agricultural land and the rest a makeshift parking area which, according to the ERA, does not seem to be covered by a permit.
From the details submitted so far it transpires that the facility will have an underground car park, with vehicles entering from Triq Burmarrad and exiting in Triq is-Sardin.
ERA filed its objection to this proposal in a recent submission to the Planning Authority in which it noted that such an application was of “significant environmental concern”.
Introducing urban type development for commercial uses on ODZ land was “unacceptable”, the watchdog remarked.
Furthermore, it also pointed out that the presence of the parking or storage area on part of the plot should not be used as a pretext for further intensification and commitments on this site.
Apart from these environmental considerations, ERA said there was no justification in taking up agricultural land to have a supermarket in an area which was already served by at least two nearby facilities.
Apart from Scotts Supermarket, which is 750 metres away, there is Piscopo Cash and Carry, just five minutes away by car, the environment watchdog is pointing out.
From a planning perspective, objections were also raised on grounds that such development would be in conflict with the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development.
Should this application be considered it would encourage further pressures on site and set a pretext for similar ODZ applications with the resulting intensification of built structures in rural areas, ERA said.
However, there have been instances where such objections were not enough to halt controversial development.
Last July, the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal dismissed an appeal which ERA had filed against a decision to issue a planning permit for a fuel station on ODZ land, also in Burmarrad.
The environment watchdog has challenged the PA’s decision saying such facility was not necessary as there were three other stations close by and that the overall footprint was in excess of the fuel stations policy.
However, the appeal was declared null by the tribunal on the grounds that the ERA had not formally objected to the project in the first place within the 30-day public consultation process.
Consequently, the authority had lost its right to appeal.
Meanwhile, works on the fuel station are almost complete as the project had nonetheless forged ahead when the appeal was still pending. However, the developer was acting within the parameters of the law, albeit at his own risk.
Had the permit been revoked, the developer would have been forced to return the site to its original state.
Apart from ERA, the St Paul’s Bay local council had also challenged the decision to issue the permit but withdrew its objection last May.