A huge proposed sports village complex in Ta' Qali on land which in part used to be made up of the Flower Power complex is set for refusal by the Planning Authority, despite the developer filing downsized plans in recent months.

The application proposes the building of a huge sports complex across some 207,000 square metres of land which is situated in an Outside Development Zone along Triq Durumblat in Attard.

If granted, the application would see the construction of a "multipurpose sports village" which includes a full-size rugby pitch, a half-size scrum training pitch, two full size football pitches, a half-size intensive training pitch, a sprint track, six tennis courts, a tennis show-court, and 12 Padel tennis courts.

It would also include an indoor sports complex, a football and rugby club, a tennis club, a sports health club, a sports rehabilitation clinic, a sports hotel (Class 3B), an indoor and outdoor garden centre, a commercial area (Class 4B and 4D), surface and underground parking, and extensive landscaping.

The development is being proposed by Michael Spiteri's Mediterranean Flower Products Limited and has been on the cards for several years: an application for a "sports and entertainment complex-family theme park" was submitted in 2008 but subsequently withdrawn, while an application very similar to this one was submitted in 2019 but also withdrawn.

This application was filed in 2022 and was initially set to be heard by the PA Board in February 2025 - when it was slated for refusal by the case officer handling it - but it was pulled from the Board's agenda at the eleventh hour after new plans were filed.

The application was set for refusal for a number of reasons, but a primary one was that the commercial uses of the proposal project exceed what is permitted in the Ta' Qali Action Plan which regulates the area.

The new plans sought to downsize this element, but still include a four-storey hotel, a sports retail centre and a food court.  The developer aimed to have the hotel and retail development considered as being "ancillary" to the sports developments - and it's an argument that the new case officer assessing the case accepted.

This part of the development is now restricted to the area in the site which is already designated as a "building zone" within the Ta' Qali Action Plan.  The plan itself limits development to 15%, but the case officer noted that because the PA has in the past considered "a number of development with 'ancillary' facilities" with a share of around 25%, then it was willing "following internal discussion" to allow this percentage for this development too.

"As such, the latest downscaled proposal may be positively considered in terms of Gross Floor Areas and Gross Floor Areas related to sport and non-sport uses," the case officer wrote.

However, the case officer said that there were still problems with the proposed development.

One of those problems is that a part of the land linked with the proposed development is linked to an approved planning permit (PA 10540/17) for the construction of an agricultural store.

The case officer noted that while the applicant claimed that he had not given any consent for this agricultural store to be built and approved on his land, "till today no proof of release have been submitted."

"As such, this constraint will still affect the comprehensive principle in relation to the site considered within the application," the case officer said.

This comprehensive principle traces back to the Ta' Qali Action Plan, which stipulates that an "overall comprehensive plan for the whole site" must be submitted in order to avoid piece-meal development.

While 85.5% of the site pertaining to the Action Plan "is being planned comprehensively" through this development, the case officer observed, the parcel of land within the ownership boundaries which is earmarked for the construction of an agricultural store affects this principle.

It affects it enough that the case officer lists it as one of the reasons that the recommendation made to the Planning Board is for it to refuse the application.

The case officer also noted that the applicant had failed to submit required correspondence from the Environment & Resources Authority within the stipulated timeframes and thus "the proposal lacks the necessary information to enable complete assessment in terms of environmental impacts."

The case officer also noted that the applicant had also failed to submit a Traffic Impact Assessment with conclusions and recommendations vis-à-vis transport within the stipulated timeframes.

"Thus, the proposal lacks the necessary information to enable complete assessment in terms of transportation requirements," the case officer concluded.

The application was therefore, once again, recommended for refusal.

It is set to be heard by the Planning Board on 5 June.