Update 2: Mepa rejects proposal for bus depot in ODZ
The field in Zebbug where Arriva proposed to set up its depot.
Updated 1.15 p.m.
The Mepa board this afternoon narrowly rejected an application by Arriva to build a bus depot in an area outside the develoment zone (ODZ) in Zebbug.
The decision was taken after the chairman, Austin Walker, submitted his casting vote when the board members were tied.
The bus company had proposed to set up a bus parking facility, a bus maintenance shed and a bus-washing facility.
The case officer had recommended approval while environment NGO Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar and the Ramblers' Association objected, saying this site is in an ODZ and is included in the agricultural zone.
The site consists of an area of approx 9300 sqm. It is an open uncultivated field dominated by low grass located opposite Ghar-Ram industrial zone. 7200sqm will be developed in an open storage facility whilst the remaining will be dedicated to the landscaping.
A representative of Arriva admitted that Transport Malta had offered facilities which Arriva had not accepted and said the Zebbug site was suitable because it was central and close to an arterial road.
Joe Farrugia, a Mepa board member, insisted that other suitable sites could be found within development zones such as industrial estates, or in containment zones which were also central and close to arterial roads and therefore he could not endorse this choice of an agricultural site.
"We have to be desperate to approve development in an ODZ," he said.
He said that it appeared that one of the reasons for the choice of the Zebbug site was that it was far cheaper to buy a site which was in an ODZ than a similar site within the development boundaries.
Those voting in favour of the proposal were Judge Giovanni Bonello, Labour MP Roderick Galdes, Charles Bonnici and Joe Vella.
Mr Galdes argued that one had to find the best balance between planning and development. He pointed out that containment areas were also considered as ODZ. If the depot was moved to, say, Hal Far, he doubted that it would work as well. This, he said, was a national project and one had to take this in context.
The case officer said the application was subject to approval from the agricultural department, which had, however, filed no objection.
He also pointed out that the site fell under the open storage policy where only 10% of the entire site can be developed structurally. The proposal was for building of 8% of the site.
Flimkien Ghal Ambjent said in a statement earlier today that this case was being processed with unseemly haste. The representation period which had been extended to 20 days by the Mepa reform process, was in this case reduced to nine days, an exception which, the NGO said, had not been seen in recent years, and this in spite of the fact that the commencement of the Arriva public transport service has been in the pipeline for a considerable period.
The FAA said this was another project that escaped the requirement for an Environment Impact Assessment which would have identified the best possible options for such a project.
"The case officer quotes the obligation on the part of the developer to justify the choice of this ODZ site, and yet endorses the project with no attempt to quote the reasons for this choice. Given the number of abandoned farms, showrooms or disturbed sites such as those lining the Mriehel bypass, the NGOs cannot accept that MEPA should disregard its primary duty to protect the environment in order to hastily accommodate further inappropriate development," FAA said.
The MEPA Board today also approved planning permission for the construction of a retail block at Smart City in Kalkara. This approved development, which is in accordance with the masterplan of the area, will be located in the south eastern part of the site and is designed on two floors with a feature in the middle and a waterfall.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
36 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr John Portelli
May 13th 2011, 10:38
Like with any other development application, it is not within the remit of MEPA or any NGO to recommend an alternative site. MEPA will only decide if you are granted a permit or refuse it.
What is so disgusting about this case, is that even fresh from a MEPA reform, the case officer without any hesitance or shame recommended to grant this application!! An application on FRESH AGRICULTURAL LAND and managed to draw a report in just 11 days. No assessment was carried out because the site in question is just 700m2 from the 10,000m2 required by law where an impact assessment is obligatory!!
How strange! I have looked at the site on the MEPA map server and did some quantity surveying and this site could EASILY have been around the 10,000m2.!!!
Mark Vella
May 12th 2011, 22:40
Why do MEPA waste its time considering such proposals? If it is ODZ, OUTSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE, then so be it. Cannot be developed. They should only consider those areas suitable for development. Why is it that in Malta everything is so complicated?
Mr Albert Bezzina
May 12th 2011, 21:13
Around 10,000 square meters are required.
An area for maintenance can be located in an established industrial area, e.g. Safi, Handaq, or near ta'Qali
Depots need not be in only one centralized area. On the contrary, three or four smaller depots strategically placed around the main north-eastern conurbation of the Island would allow direct deployment of the buses to the morning starting times - one would be part of the maintenance unit. One or two other smaller depots could be placed within the conurbation. Only a few of the depots would have their own bus cleaning staff and equipment.
Yes, some extra personnel may be required with decentralized depots but such areas would be more manageable, could be incorporated into existing industrial zones and large tracts of ODZ are spared. Each zone would be between 2000 to 3500 square meters (four to six in all) - around one third of a football field each.
Ms Lesley Kreupl
May 12th 2011, 21:12
Well done FAA for protecting yet another ODZ area! Thank you!
Mr Denis Pace
May 12th 2011, 20:58
If only Roderick Galdes can be a bit consistent.
He lost all credibility.
Mark Jones
May 12th 2011, 20:28
Congratulations, Mr Walker, but it is shameful that half of the MEPA board were prepared to allow this development.
Considering that the takeover of the bus service by non-Arriva is only seven weeks away, it seems a little late in the day for them to be squabbling with TransportMalta over something as basic as a depot. Many of the proposed routes now seem to be under re-consideration as well. What's the betting that non-Arriva will turn round before 3rd July and demand a re-negotiation of the fares?
Opera ...fat lady...sings???
Ms D Galea
May 12th 2011, 20:22
Can FAA propose an alternatiive site for the depot?
Astrid Vella
May 12th 2011, 20:41
We mentioned disturbed sites along the Mriehel bypass which is even more central and better connected to the road system than the Zebbug ODZ site. MEPA Board member Ing. Joe Farrugia confirmed that there are disused sites in the Qormi, Marsa and Luqa development zones that are larger and better served than this one.
Ing Farrugia insisted that the cheap cost of these two fields when compared to the rates of development property would have been an important factor that led to the choice of this site.
Mr Robert Calafato
May 12th 2011, 21:07
"He also pointed out that the site fell under the open storage policy where only 10% of the entire site can be developed structurally. The proposal was for building of 8% of the site."
Ha Ha Ha!! So the remaining 92% will be a nice landscaped garden right?
Mr T Zahra
May 13th 2011, 01:18
Ms Galea, a quick drive through Mriehel Industrial Estate or San gwann Indusstrial Estate or Bulebel Industrial estate...shall I go on....that is why we have INDUSTRIAL ESTATES for locating Industrial business.....but no...we are all ever so keen in raping our country side instead....Well done Joe Farrugia for putting your foot down...shame on thos emembers for voting yes to rape another section of our pristine countryside./....Well done to all the NGOS for their work to stop this psoposal
Mr Paul Micallef
May 12th 2011, 20:22
Roderick Galdes's arguments are not convicing. In a small country like Malta nowhere is that far that it cannot be reached in a few minutes. His stand on this matter is not understood.
Mr Paul Caruana
May 12th 2011, 19:33
I will admit my scepticism of MEPA, and distrustful of its work. In this case, I believe the decision was correct. Looks like the MEPA reforms have put it on the right track after all!
Astrid Vella
May 12th 2011, 18:09
FAA is insinuating nothing by saying that the "this case was being processed with unseemly haste" - merely stating the facts. In five years of working in this field, I have never seen a representation period halved from 20 days to 9 days which effectively ensured the lack of objectors.
Even more remarkable is the fact that the Case Officer report was issued a mere 11 days after the representation period closed - no wonder no in-depth studies were made! Not even photomontages were presented, a tool which has become standard even among objectors, let alone being essential to the assessment of a project like this. Maybe the would have revealed the unsuitability of the project to its setting. It is finally amazing that a major project like this was brought before the MEPA Board in just four weeks after it was published!
Given that other much smaller, less harmful projects drag on for years - one application for a garage door has been running for two years - the speed at which this project was pushed through just shows what pressure MEPA was under to process this application.
While we cannot understand how the MEPA Environmental Directorate could approve the destruction of the very countryside it's supposed to defend, leaving it up to the NGOs to do the Directorate's work for it, the final refusal reflects very well on the Board's commitment to the values of MEPA reform.
Mr Antoine Vella
May 12th 2011, 16:07
The FAA statement claimed that the case was being processed "with unseemly haste" implying that MEPA had some mysterious, hidden interest to "to hastily accommodate further inappropriate development."
In the light of what has actually happened, perhaps some explanations are due for the unwarranted insinuations..
Astrid Vella
May 12th 2011, 19:32
Oh and by the way, in addition to the comment above, the MEPA website does not display a photo of the site notice of this application as it normally does. PBS coverage of this case showed the site notice dumped in the grass of the field. It is the developer's legal obligation to ensure that the site notice is publicly displayed in a prominent place on the site.
The lack of photo on the MEPA website certainly makes one wonder.
Mr John Portelli
May 12th 2011, 15:02
Prosit MEPA and specially Mr. Walker for proving that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
10 tumoli of land saved from the hungry developers.
Let's hope now that the MEPA Appleals board will also reverse the controversial new Pig Farm permit next to 3 homes which the ex-charman simply brushed it off as a luxuary of common sense!! (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080415/letters/common-sense-a-luxury.204163)
Mr Michael Pace
May 12th 2011, 14:29
Congratulations to Austin Walker and the other MEPA board members who voted for rejection. Shame on those who still accept the possibility of ODZ development.
Mr Giovanni Rizzo
May 12th 2011, 14:28
How about a not in use anymore quarry?
Mr W Cassar
May 12th 2011, 14:17
There are many places that are empty, Im sure they could find somewhere.
Mr Darren Galea
May 12th 2011, 14:08
Tistghu jekk jogobkom dhallu bicctejn art bejn Haz Zebbug u Hal-Qormi minghajr bini?..Ftit iehor u jmissu flimkien ukoll :S Hallu l karatteristici ta rahal mifrud min iehor mux daqt nigu bicca binja shiha.
Steve Zammit
May 12th 2011, 14:21
Hekk kont qed nghid jien ukoll!! Kwazi jaqbadni l-biki kull darba li nghaddi min hemm.
Il-Kappella faccata VisionTech u Michael Debono tat-Toyota, fgawha bil-bini u issa magenbha, ghadhom kemm gie imwahhal tabella ohra ''Plot for sale''. Ftit ikta l-isfel taw permess li jinbena ''Light Industrial Area'' u issa qeghdin jinbnew ikar kaxxi tal-konkrit!
Tal-Misthija!! Haz-Zebbug u Har-Qormi daqt jitmissu ma xulxin. Fl-ahhar sena, tellghu iktar bini bla bzonn f'art li xi darba kienu ghelieqi
MEPA wake up please and save the little we have left!
Mr M Mamo
May 12th 2011, 14:03
ohh a Labour MP voted in favor ... of course, then when the LP is elected they will criticise the MEPA and GonziPN for it!
Mr Tony Abela Abela
May 12th 2011, 13:54
So the Government during the negotiation process with the new Public Transport Company did not in the merit of what plans they had for their depot? Excellent planning from our public paid politicians and civil servants.
Tony Abela
Mr Peter Montebello
May 12th 2011, 13:51
Just an idea: what about using the area at ex Malta shipbuilding in Marsa?
Mr Joseph M Scicluna
May 12th 2011, 13:30
So the bus depot will not be erected in this ODZ, but perhaps next to someone's doorstep enjoying th early . morning and late night noises and fumes emitted by the buses. Did MEPA took this into consideration? The only happy few will be those Ghal Ambjent Ahjar and The Ramblers Association.
Mr James Gatt
May 12th 2011, 14:05
And when Malta is entirely built up, and another depot is needed, there will be no choice but to put it next to someone's doorstep! Plus, chances are that if you live close to an arterial road, then you're already "enjoying the early morning and late night noises and fumes emitted" by all the traffic!
Astrid Vella
May 12th 2011, 18:16
No Mr. Scicluna, the option of permitting this bus depot in a residential area was excluded from the start. However, as raised by FAA and confirmed by MEPA Board Member, Ing Joe Farrugia, there are still many sites, several of them derelict or disturbed, in the Mriehel, Marsa, Qormi and Luqa area which are central, close to arterial roads but not in residential areas.
It is always a challenge to accommodate all interests, that is exactly why Environment Impact Assessments and scoping studies are held, not to create difficulties, but to explore the best possible solutions for all concerned. In this case it seems that neither Arriva nor the Environment Directorate were interested in such an option.
Mr R ferriggi
May 12th 2011, 13:24
hands off what is left of our non-built up area.
if you want ,,, regenerate.
these excuses of stopping the country's progress are lame.
STOP to all further rape of what is left. the little that is left in this concrete island.
maltese public,,,,,,,,, DO NOT ACCEPT THAT ANY OF OUR LAND IS GOBBLED UP BY SPECULATORS.
THE TIME HAS COME FOR STANDING UP AND BE COUNTED. THE RUTHLESS SPECULATORS HAVE NO LIMITS TO THEIR GREED.
Mr Jay Oatmon
May 12th 2011, 11:07
This indicates either a total lack of pre-planning, or incompetence, or a 'bumble through' attitude - it shows just how poorly thought out things are in Malta.
Before any major project begins pre-planning should take place, a schedule of events with milestones needs to be made, and critical path items identified - this screwup is what you get with amateur politicians at the wheel, and not professionals.
Mr Brian Simmons
May 12th 2011, 15:24
That just about hits the nail on the head!
Maybe SOMEONE doesn't want Malta to have a new bus service.
Oh yes and by the way, you'll just LOVE those old bendy buses! We're so pleased to be rid of them!
Stanley M Debono
May 12th 2011, 10:51
Grazzi Flimkien Ghal Ambjent
Postijiet iddikjarati bhala ODZ mghandhomx jitmissu minhabba nuqqas ta' pjanar mill-entitajiet involuti.
Baqa' aktar skuzi x'nivvintaw biex neqirdu l-ambjent naturali Malti li suppost qed nharsu ghalina w ghal uliedna?
Mr Joseph Stafrace
May 12th 2011, 10:37
I was under the impression that this garage was going to be situated at Corradino Industrial Estate. Maybe the idea of having the installation in a central area was taken on board. Thank heaven for that; we have quiet enough at this part of the island.
Mr Victor Borg
May 12th 2011, 10:30
There are plenty of empty and derelict places in build-up areas in Malta: why can't MEPA or the government be a bit creative and find an unused space instead of always laying more concrete and more buildings on unbuilt land?
Mr Robert Gatt
May 12th 2011, 10:27
Ta' Għarram, not Għar-Ram!
Mr daniel Gordon
May 12th 2011, 10:08
2 months til the new bus system starts and they haven't actually planned where to park all these nice new buses....
No one thought it necessary to get a safe and secure parking area sorted out BEFORE the buses arrive?
I hope they plan a proper water catchment basin and filter system for the bus wash facility, otherwise all that dirty contaminated water will be going back in to the water table.
I'm looking forward to using the new bus system to get to work in St. Julians.
Mrs Miriam Cremona
May 12th 2011, 10:07
One wonders how and why this particular site was selected especially in an ODZ when there are so many unused and abandoned factories in industrial estates and neglected and unused showrooms on bypasses which could easily be utilised to house the garage and its facilities.
Why was the period for objections and submissions reduced to nine days when it is twenty days in the new regulations? Why such blatant disregard for MEPA regulations?
Were other sites considered and why were they not selected? The case officer was obliged to give reasons for the non selection of other sites and failed to do so in his report.
Once again we see the newly reformed MEPA regulations bent.