Petrol station applicant is given ‘privileged treatment’

The planning authority’s outgoing auditor has slammed a permit to relocate a petrol station on the outskirts of Mġarr, claiming that the applicant had been given “privileged treatment”.

In one of his final reports, Joe Falzon also criticised the planning authority for “rewarding” the developer who had“illegally and abusively” converted a large plot of agricultural land for open storage of equipment adjacent to the old petrol station in the village’s main square.

“The applicant, who broke the law by carrying out an illegal development creating a major eyesore in the very centre of the town, was rewarded by being allowed to transfer this business to a site outside development zone,” Mr Falzon said.

In August 2011, Michael Galea was granted a full development permit to relocate a petrol station from Mġarr town centre to an area that was outside the scheme. An outline permit had been granted in 2006.

The new petrol station includes a showroom and an underlying basement garage for plant and machinery storage, which will be built over 2,406 square metres of agricultural land. The building would actually take up 173 square metres.

However, Mr Falzon pointed out that the permit also allowed the construction of a car showroom – in breach of planning policies for the area.

“Is the planning authority willing to grant a permit to build a car showroom outside the building zone? If such an application would be refused, why was this particular application approved?” he queried.

This same principle applied to the car repair workshop that involved spray painting which would take place on site. A number of people would like to relocate their business or start one off outside habitable areas, he argued.

The planning authority justifiably “insists” these developments should be kept within industrial zones and not outside schemes.

“Why was this particular applicant given privileged treatment and his application approved?” Mr Falzon said.

The case officer report and minutes of the board meeting did not justify this “serious departure from policy”.

The report had been drawn up after the Ramblers Association – one of the many groups which criticised the development – asked Mr Falzon to investigate the matter.

In his recommendations, Mr Falzon said the lack of a proper policy document about petrol stations “makes it impossible to decide whether good planning practice has been followed”.

However, the approval of a retail facility to sell cars, a service garage and the approval of a storage facility for construction vehicles “is clearly against policy and should not have been approved”.

The auditor said the report had been sent to the Mepa chairman last November but no reply was received.

When contacted, a Mepa spokesman said the planning authority was legally bound by an outline development permit to relocate a hazardous petrol station away from the village core.

The outline permit also stipulated that these activities should be relocated to a new site following a site selection exercise, the spokesman said.

The new site had the backing of the local council, which demanded the“eyesore” be removed from the square but not far out from the village because it was used by farmers.