Army objects as man files application for clubhouse on AFM football ground

The Armed Forces of Malta has strongly objected to a planning application that would see part of a building connected to a football ground in Kirkop turned into a clubhouse.

The application is to change the use from a multipurpose hall to clubhouse at the roof floor level. The proposal also includes the change in materials of an external window from timber to aluminium timber-like apertures. The site is the Armed Forces of Malta (AFM) Football Ground, located at Triq 29 ta Mejju 1592 at Triq Taz-Zebbiegh in Kirkop.

According to a letter presented to the Planning Authority, the Armed Forces said that the applicant is asking for permission to change the use of the property, “from what he calls a multi-purpose hall, but is effectively a dressing room, to a clubhouse, a form of Kazin”. Originally the request was to be heard before the planning commission, however the AFM asked for it to be heard by the PA Board.

The AFM said that it had given temporary permission to Kirkop United F.C. so that, at specific times when the AFM would not be using the football ground, the children of the locality will be able to practice the sport and use the adjacent dressing room facilities.

A certain Joe Farrugia (it is unclear whether this is the same Joe Farrugia who is the chairman of the Kirkop United FC club), with whom the AFM has no juridical relationship and who has no juridical interest or title on the property, presented an application to form a clubhouse on this property that remains a military base and also happens to serve as a detention centre facility for irregular migrants. The GPD’s relationship is also strictly with the AFM and not Joseph Farrugia.

“The AFM strongly objects to the presence of a clubhouse on the property which it has possession of and title to.” The AFM said that the proposal for a clubhouse certainly does not fall into the scope of defence and national security. The AFM said that concessions that occur regarding the temporary use of the football ground for limited times, does not extend to the creation of a clubhouse and ancillary activities and the difficulties it can bring with it.

The case officer, in his report, noted the site ownership issues, and mentioned that the applicant had highlighted that he is not the sole owner of the site. “Given this, the owners being the Government Property Department (GPD) and the Armed Forces of Malta (AFM) were notified. Nevertheless, the AFM is objecting to this proposal, while the GPD submitted their no objection, subject to conditions.”

The GPD said that clearance is subject to, among other things, the proposed development not running counter to conditions under which it is given on emphyteusis, and that no third party rights are being infringed by the proposed development. “This clearance is also being issued without prejudice to a final decision being taken by the GPD in respect of any development that is permitted by the Planning Authority.” It reserved the right to refuse granting the final clearance.

The case officer noted the advice the Planning Directorate received from the legal office.

“If it is clear to the Authority that AFM are the owners of the site in question then the application cannot be entertained, if however AFM are not the owners, or there is a clear dispute between the applicant and AFM as to who is the owner of the site, than the Authority is to proceed with the application. If AFM are not the owners and the actual owners haven’t advanced any form of objection, then the authority is to proceed with the processing of the application.

“Given this advice, the application is no longer in line with requirements set out by Article 71 part 4 (which requires that the applicant certifies that the owner of the land has granted his consent for the proposed works), and as such not compliant the Planning Development Act, 2016,” the case officer noted. He recommended that the application be refused.

The case officer also noted that following the representation letter received from the Armed Forces of Malta, the architect / applicant were notified. Following this, the architect requested an extension of time in order to tackle this issue. Following the six months of suspension period this matter remained unresolved by the architect / applicant. “The proposed development cannot be favourably recommended.”

The case is set to be decided by the PA Board on Thursday.