Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/964110
maltatoday WEDNESDAY 11 APRIL 2018 Analysis 6 WILL changes in the fuel sta- tions policy apply to the 10 pending applications which are being processed according to the current policy regime? This is the big question facing the government. The changes include a down- sizing of the site area allowed from 3,000sq.m to 2,000sq.m, an increased distance between permitted petrol stations, re- moving the loophole allowing petrol stations in rural areas opposite industrial zones and a sharper distinction between brand new and relocated pet- rol stations. If these rules come in force now, a number of pending applications including the one in Luqa discussed last Thursday will not be approved. Surely not approving pending applications earmarked to fit the criteria of the 2014 policy would send a shiver down the spine of the pro development lobby. Developers have bought land with present policies in mind. They would feel cheated if the policy is changed right in the middle of the planning process especially since some of the pending applications pre-date others which have al- ready been approved. But if a distinction is made and the PA continues assessing present applications through the old policy, the government would be creating two classes of applicants; those served by present policies and those who will face a stricter regime. By endorsing a change in goalposts for petrol station applicants proposed by ERA, Minister Herrera has surely emerged politically stronger; proving that he is not giving way. But he has also put the Plan- ning Authority in a quandary when faced with those applica- tions presented by owners who had rushed to reap the benefits of the present policy. This is so since any permit approved under the current policy will be seen negatively; as one approved under the re- mit of a policy which was so defective that the government had to change it. Even if pend- ing applications are processed under the old policy, the board would be under greater pres- sure to refuse these applica- tions. For how can the public accept that applications are processed through a defective policy? Policies full of loopholes Revising the fuel stations policy also casts a dark shadow on the policies rushed through by the newly-elected govern- ment as soon as it was elected in 2013. While still in its honeymoon the Planning Authority ap- proved a series of policies regulating tall buildings, rural development, hotel heights, fireworks factories, fuel sta- tions, urban development and chairs and tables in front of restaurants. These policies were meant to fill a policy vacuum left by previous PN administrations which preferred ad-hoc ap- proval of individual projects. Yet rather than addressing this major shortcoming these policies seemed tailor-made to kick-start a construction boom. The fuel station policy was originally aimed at regulating the relocation of existing pet- rol stations from residential areas. Instead, the new policy was itself designed in a way to fa- cilitate the approval of brand new petrol stations through well-crafted loopholes like that allowing ODZ develop- ment opposite and adjacent to industrial areas and areas of containment. By the PA's own admission these changes to the original draft were made following "meetings with individuals." History repeating itself? In this case the PL may be in the same position of post-2008 PN governments which were facing a backlash after the building boom of the mid- noughties. They then tried to mend the negative impact of their pro- development policies through the MEPA reform approved in 2010. In so doing they ended up al- ienating developers who were denied the chance to do what others had done before them before the government decided to close the tap. In one case the Prime Minis- ter himself intervened to issue a conservation order to change the goal posts to save Trans- figuration Avenue in Lija from increased building heights foreseen in local plan changes. The PN's conversion on the way to Damascus also came as a result of electoral difficulties faced by the Gonzi administra- tion after the 2006 extension of building boundaries which resulted in rising anger among pale blue voters. Added to this was the electoral threat posed by AD which was still in its hey-day. This led the PN to change tack through more restrictive planning policies after 2008. While before 2008 the PN benefitted from the support of beneficiaries of the exten- sion of boundaries policies and more liberal building heights it failed to get any substantial credit for more restrictive poli- cies after 2008. One major reason for this is that while among environ- mentalists the PN's credentials were tarnished by past deci- sions, among developers the party faced a creeping percep- tion that only a restricted cir- cle were benefitting. Like the PN, Labour may be- come more sensitive to envi- ronmental issues when pres- sure starts to bear in local communities where it is elec- torally stronger. This was clearly the case with the government's decision to drop plans for the extension of the Bulebel industrial estate in Zejtun. A much tougher test case will be the approval of the mega high-rise development in Pem- broke, a Labour led locality where concern on over-devel- opment is rising. In such a case the Labour government will have to make a clear choice between the de- mands of the local community as opposed to development and honouring a land deal with the DB construction group. This makes this case more problematic than popular pro- tests against the Manoel is- land project in Gzira. In that case Muscat managed to strike a balance between the local community and the develop- ers in the comfort that the deal with MIDI was signed under a PN led government. Yet does the government have JAMES DEBONO NOTICE Third Judicial District Court, State of Utah, Salt Lake County In the matter of the adoption of Tina Micallef Phansuwan, Case No. 182900087 STATE OF UTAH TO: Carmelo Micallef A petition for adoption has been filed in the Third Judicial District Court, State of Utah, regarding a child born on December 16, 2006, in Valletta, Malta to Uraiwan Phansuwan. IF YOU INTEND TO CONTEST THE ADOPTION, YOU MUST FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF UTAH CODE ยง 78B-6-110(6), INCLUDING FILING A MOTION TO INTERVENE WITH THE COURT, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIVING THIS NOTICE. IF YOU DO NOT, THE COURT WILL ENTER AN ORDER THAT YOU HAVE WAIVED ANY RIGHT TO FURTHER NOTICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE CHILD, FORFEITED ALL RIGHTS IN RELATION TO THE CHILD, AND ARE BARRED FROM THEREAFTER BRINGING OR MAINTAINING ANY ACTION TO ASSERT ANY INTEREST IN THE CHILD. Any motion to intervene must be filed with the Third Judicial District Court, 450 S. State Street, P.O. Box 1860, Salt Lake City, UT 84114, with a copy mailed to Larry Jenkins, 50 E. South Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84111, and must set forth specific relief sought, accompanied by a memorandum specifying factual and legal grounds on which the motion is based. For a copy of the petition, contact Mr. Jenkins at (801) 328-3600. Petrol stations: First come, Changing policy goal posts may hint that government is listening. But it may well be that the fuel station policy had served its purpose; that of appeasing the first round of applicants. Will such changes assuage popular anger or will they open yet another can of worms? ODZ petrol station approved in Triq l-Arznu, Maghtab