The Sliema local council and Qui-Si-Sana residents have for the past few weeks been engaged in rapid crossfire over the proposed underground car park in Sliema.
While the majority of the council members are in favour of such a development, the residents are dead set against it.
A section of the residents claim the developer, C & F Building Contractors, might later apply for a change of use as had happened with the CCP car park in High Street, Sliema.
The issue has now snowballed with the residents forming an association to fight this project.
Environment Minister George Pullicino firmly believes the residents are basing their opinions on misleading information. Here he talks to George Cini on why he strongly holds that the Qui-Si-Sana car park would benefit the residents in the neighbourhood and Sliema in general.
What's the point of having an underground car park at Qui-Si-Sana?
In 1998 I was given the post of parliamentary secretary in the ministry responsible for lands when I was also responsible for the Planning Authority. I had already pointed out this site in 1994 when the issue of the development of a car park in High Street, Sliema arose. I had argued then that car parks should not be built in the heart of Sliema but rather on the periphery of the town.
The need for such a car park will become even more acute now that a tunnel and a peripheral road will be linking Qui-Si- Sana to Tigné as part of the MIDI project. The idea is that visitors to the area will park underground in order to enable residents to have more spaces where to park. That was and still is the overall goal of the car park and that is why I am defending the project.
Residents as well as the Sliema local council are totally against the idea of having to pay for parking in the residents' parking zones.
The development brief is clear enough about such matters and I hope the residents see what the brief says exactly. Item 6.3 of the brief talks about the setting up of resident parking zones (RPZ).
The brief states: "The successful bidder (of the tender) will be eligible to recoup the initials costs (of the setting up, management and running of the RPZ) and other construction costs up to half of the commuted parking payment scheme (CPPS) fund for Sliema as at December 15, 2000 that amounts to Lm327,600.
"If these costs exceed half of the current CPPS fund for Sliema, the developer shall meet the shortfall."
But then why did the contractor go to the Sliema local council suggesting a list of fees that people would have to pay for parking in the RPZ?
Such a question should be put to the contractor. I do not represent the contractor and if I start answering queries on his behalf, suspicion could creep in that I am in collusion with him.
The contractor cannot ask residents to pay for parking in the RPZ. The management of the RPZ will for the first three years be paid for from the CPPS funds. After that, the management of the RPZ will be passed on to the local council.
What I will keep insisting on is that the Malta Environment and Planning Authority will not give the contractor any more or any less than what is specified in the development brief.
I have absolutely no relationship with any of the contractors that bid for the public tender. The selection of the bidder with the highest offer was made by technical people.
If one takes into account the amount of parking spaces that will become available once the Tigné project and Town Square are completed, not to mention other underground car parks in new apartment blocks in Qui-Si-Sana itself, your argument for the need of a car park in Qui-Si-Sana does not seem to hold much water.
Exactly the opposite is the case. When one brings into the picture the number of developments where contractors had to pay funds to the CPPS since 1998 because such developments lacked the provision for parking the parking problem will be exacerbated. Not to mention the possibility of the government selling the Crowne Plaza Hotel and the turning of the site into another residential/commercial development.
Residents are arguing strongly that they should not be charged a fee for parking in the underground car park.
The development brief does not go into this but then the government does not feel it should make the contractor give any preferential treatment to anybody in the car park. The preference is being given to residents to park in the RPZ so that they will be at an advantage over drivers coming to Qui-Si-Sana from other areas.
The residents are arguing that once the contractor completes the car park he would be at liberty to apply for a change of use in spite of the fact that the development was paid for by funds from the CPPS.
No, the contractor cannot apply for a change of use.
But then how could CPP, the operator of the underground car park in High Street, Sliema apply and be granted a change of use?
The land on which the CPP was built was private property while the land at Qui-Si-Sana is government property. A change of use at Qui-Si-Sana would not merely need applying to Mepa but such a change of use would involve amending the contract the developer signed with the government.
But even a contract with the government can be changed.
Everything can be changed, even such a contract, but then one would have to go through all the procedures in place to change a contract with the government. Theoretically, it is possible but it is not easy to achieve.
You are saying it is possible but not probable...
Yes, possible but not probable. Everything is possible but there has to be an agreement not only with Mepa but also with the Estate Management Department for such a concession. Apart from the fact that once the government had set out a development brief, then Mepa would have to abide strictly by that brief.
The residents as well as several local councillors are arguing that another public consultation ought to be held about the development brief published in 2000 because the brief published in 1998 did not include any structure above ground level.
Here again, the opposite is the case. The original draft was proposing that the kiosk above ground level was going to occupy an area of 100 square metres. In spite of the fact that no one, including the Sliema local council, had objected to that development, the area was reduced to 40 square metres. It is not true either that the garden will be lost but, on the contrary, it will be enlarged by incorporating the two parcels of land nearby currently used as car parks.
The development brief talks of innovative tourist related/leisure facilities. This umbrella term is open to various interpretations.
The keyword here is "innovative" which means the developer cannot come up with retail outlets or restaurants because there is nothing innovative in that. Such facilities could include a permanent exhibition or an aquarium. These are the types of facilities that would be permitted.
The principal reason why I have pushed this project is to reduce the pressure on parking spaces for residents in the locality. I will be defending this development brief. Nothing less, nothing more.
If the developer insists he wants more than is specified in the development brief he should stop and the tender goes to the next bidder in line.
I am neither involved in the tourism industry nor in the property business and I declare that I have never worked as an architect with this contractor.