Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/163731
4 News maltatoday, SUNDAY, 1 SEPTEMBER 2013 MEPA to sanction illegal building so that passers-by don't watch football for free Triq Manuela, the secondary road from which cars have to enter to park outside the Mosta football ground JAMES DEBONO MEPA'S planning directorate is giving the green light to an illegal increase in a football ground's boundary wall, so that passers-by will not be able to watch football matches for free. The Malta Environment and Planning Authority's planning directorate is calling on the MEPA board to approve controversial accretions to the Mosta football ground and is dropping its previous insistence to demolish any illegal structures before a development permit is issued. MEPA had started the demolition of an illegal two-storey structure at Mosta FC's ground back in 2011, before it was stopped by a court injunction. The new development, which will increase seating capacity by 106, does not provide any additional parking facilities – a factor which the case officer noted exacerbates the parking problems faced by residents in Triq Manuela, Mosta. The ground was built by the state back in 1992, and a permit for terraced seating was issued in 2009. But two enforcement orders against illegal structures on the site were issued in subsequent years, namely for a gymnasium and a nursery clubhouse, and an elevated VIP area. The application, submitted by Malta Football Association president Norman Darmanin Demajo, is to turn the ground into a regional one for Division 2 and Division 3 matches to be played. The ground is already located in an outside development zone facing Valletta Road, and is only accessible from a secondary road, Triq Manuela. Residents who have complained on the application contend that the height limit of 1.2 metres for the boundary wall imposed in a previous permit had already been compromised by structures rising above that limit. These include the extra row in the seating terrace, a bar, toilets, the VIP stand and ticket booth. Now MEPA's planning directorate is justifying a change in stance by saying that the increase in height is meant to ensure that football matches cannot be watched "for free" from the pavement. "Therefore notwithstanding the previous condition on the height of the boundary wall… the boundary wall has not been drastically heightened and from an aesthetic point of view is acceptable," the directorate said. Residents also complain that not enough parking spaces in the area can cater for the increased traffic created by the development, which is intended to bring in more supporters to see the football matches. They said that the "capricious" addition of extra seating for the VIP area was not compensated for by sufficient on-site parking. The seating capacity will increase from 535 to 641, and no additional parking spaces can be provided. On its part MEPA is simply asking for a €12,815 contribution for its own Urban Improvement Fund. Residents also argued that MEPA couldn't regularise the illegal development before it is pulled down. The Planning Directorate is insisting that the procedure only applies in cases where the illegal development cannot be sanctioned. This position contrasts with the position adopted by the authority in 2011, when MEPA started demolishing the two-storey building being built illegally at the Mosta ground. On that occasion MEPA claimed that following the authority's 2010 reform, sanctioning of this large two-storey structure in an ODZ area was not possible, and that the developer would have to demolish the entire building for MEPA to even consider accepting the submission of a planning application for any development on this site. It was stopped from carrying out the demolition by a court injunction. In 2010 the planning authority's own auditor lambasted the case officer overseeing the application for the upgrading of the football ground, for an "extremely poor" report that failed to address the complaints from objectors. In his report, auditor Joe Falzon described as "sustained" the objectors' complaint that the permit issued by MEPA had not been approved according to official policies. The cause of this, he said, was "a poor case officer's report which did not lead the DCC properly, especially in view of the objections received".