A planning tribunal has turned down a request by the Valletta local council to build a playing field opposite Fort St Elmo, pointing out it would create a hazard.

A playing field fronting a busy street is likely to contribute to a risk of danger

Its design was “sloppy” and the appeal should not be accepted, the Environment and Planning Tribunal said in its decision.

The council filed the appeal after a development application was refused in December 2011 because it did not comply with the area’s structure plan and “will change the historic setting of a Grade 1 listed building”.

The space, directly opposite the fort, was its main “view point” and the project was considered to be an “overdevelopment”.

The Heritage Planning Unit described the project as “overkill for the area” and would be better suited in an area surrounded by new development.

Architect Robert Musumeci, representing the council, argued the area was neglected and would be upgraded through the project. The site on the Valletta ring road is currently used for car parking.

The area was abandoned and the council wanted to provide an adequately equipped space for residents and children, who suffered from considerable social problems, Mr Musumeci said.

The proposed interventions were small and reversible and the council could not understand how it would impact the city’s integrity.

“If anything, it is the state of the area that is stifling Valletta’s status as Unesco’s World Heritage Site,” the council said.

When consulted, Transport Malta had suggested a number of changes for safety measures but these involved the council submitting a fresh set of plans.

“From a planning and safety view, a playing field in a corner site fronting a traffic-busy street is still likely to contribute to a risk of danger to children and adults,” it said.

The authority also dismissed the council’s argument that the project would eliminate the current on-site parking issue as it pointed out that it was illegal.

In its decision, the tribunal asked if it was opportune for this piece of land to be used as a playing field. The plans showed it would have created a “considerable visual clutter”.

While pointing out that it was good that open spaces were developed, this particular site was located opposite the National War Museum and “it might have been more useful for the council and the museum to come out with a proposal” for the area.

A set of outdoor exhibits resistant to the elements and vandalism was a possibility, the tribunal said.