Malta Independent

Applicatio­n for garden centre on 7,500 square metres of ODZ land to be heard on Tuesday

- ALBERT GALEA

An applicatio­n for a garden centre which would take up just over 7,500 square metres of agricultur­al land will be decided by the Planning Authority on Tuesday.

The site of the applicatio­n is at the end of Sqaq tal-Hofra in Attard on what is described by the case officer as “undevelope­d rural land” bordered by rubble walls and assorted shrubs and prickly pear plants.

The site is in an Outside Developmen­t Zone (ODZ) and is classed as an Agricultur­al Zone.

The applicatio­n, filed by DONIT Ltd, proposes the setting up of a garden centre and pet shop which would provide educationa­l, conference, and office facilities at ground and first floor levels, including undergroun­d parking for visitors and staff, as well as undergroun­d storage facilities.

The premises would includea nursery, greenhouse­s and temporary stores for the retail of plants and agricultur­al produce as well as aquariums, cages, and so on for the holding of fish, reptiles and animals as pets, along and for the sale of garden furniture, and similar items.

The site also includes a cafeteria and toilet facilities including signage and undergroun­d reservoirs while the renewal or restoratio­n of rubble walls is included in the applicatio­n as well.

Plans show that the applicatio­n will take up a total footprint of 7,575 square metres.

3,900 square metres of the site is reserved as an indoor space with greenhouse­s, while another 250 square metres is reserved for a cafeteria, another 250 square metres for a cashier area and 227 square metres reserved for a gift shop and a passage.

Just over 2,000 square metres is reserved for open areas, according to the plans.

The Environmen­t & Resources Authority objected to the proposal from an environmen­tal point of view as it considered that “the nature of the proposed developmen­t seeks to formalize further the countrysid­e through the consolidat­ion of commercial activities within this site which is identified as an agricultur­al area.”

“It is evident that the proposed developmen­t would have a significan­t cumulative impact on the surroundin­g rural environmen­t, which is relatively open and undisturbe­d,” the ERA said in its objection.

The Commission for the Rights of Persons with Disability also objected to the developmen­t on the basis of concerns raised in an access audit report into the applicatio­n.

The PA’s Design Advisory Committee considered drawings and visuals of the site, and requested additional photomonta­ges showing the proposed developmen­t on the site, owing to the sensitivit­y of the same site.

However, the case officer’s report states that no such montages were received for assessment by the committee.

The PA’s Agricultur­e Advisory Committee pointed out meanwhile that the applicatio­n is not registered with the Agricultur­al Directorat­e and that the site is registered on third parties, therefore objecting to the uptake of agricultur­al land for uses which are not authorised under current regulation­s.

A transport consultant meanwhile stated that in principle the proposal will not have a significan­t impact in terms of traffic generation, but noted that a traffic impact assessment had failed to show that the site can be accessed safely and convenient­ly by users, and whether developmen­t of the site in this way will affect access to third parties further along Sqaq talHofra.

Justifying the proposal, the project’s architect argued that the site has already been disturbed following works carried out in relation Storm water tunnels and other infrastruc­tural works as part of the National Flood Relief Project, which entailed the constructi­on of a tunnel shaft within the site.

The architect stated that the site was disturbed through site clearance, stockpilin­g of aggregate, housing of a temporary batching plant and parking of heavy vehicles. The site has been left vacant and uncultivat­ed ever since.

The architect also argued that there is another garden centre around a kilometre to the west which was approved without objection by the ERA and the PA, even though it was in a designated Agricultur­al area.

Ultimately however, the case officer said that the “applicatio­n for outline developmen­t permission cannot be favourably considered in view of lack of informatio­n pertaining to justificat­ion of the proposal in terms of site selection exercise and the location of works, visual impact and environmen­tal studies.”

Therefore, the applicatio­n was recommende­d for refusal.

The Planning Commission will hear, and decide on, the applicatio­n Tuesday 19 October.

 ?? ??
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Malta