Attard fuel station proposal withdrawn after case officer flags policy breach

An application to relocate a petrol station from Ta’ Xbiex to Attard has been withdrawn following the submission of a case officer’s report recommending outright refusal due to policy breaches and environmental concerns.

The proposal, filed by Charles Mifsud, sought full development permission to construct a new fuel station on vacant land at Ta’ San Martin along Triq l-Imdina.

The development included fuel pumps, a car wash, a workshop, a Class 4B shop, EV charging points, underground fuel tanks and staff facilities.

However, the case officer concluded that the proposal fundamentally conflicted with the 2020 Fuel Service Station Policy, particularly because the site lies outside the development zone (ODZ) and lacks any form of prior development commitment.

While the policy allows the relocation of existing fuel stations, it strictly limits where such facilities can be sited. In this case, the proposed Attard site does not qualify under any of the permissible categories. Crucially, it is not covered by a valid development permit nor does it host pre-1967 structures—conditions required for ODZ eligibility under the policy.

The report also flagged significant environmental concerns. The site is currently agricultural land and lies close to sensitive watercourses, including Wied ta’ San Martin. The Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) objected to the development, warning it would result in unnecessary land take-up and the formalisation of a largely untouched rural area.

Cultural heritage impacts were also flagged. The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage noted the site’s proximity to key visual corridors towards Mdina, stressing the importance of safeguarding views of the historic skyline.

Objections were additionally filed by NGOs including Din l-Art Ħelwa and Moviment Graffiti, citing conflicts with rural and strategic planning policies.

Despite meeting some criteria—such as being located more than 500 metres from another fuel station and providing adequate parking—the application was deemed unacceptable in principle.

The case officer recommended refusal on the grounds that the development violates fuel station policy and undermines rural protection objectives. The application was subsequently withdrawn before reaching the Planning Board.