Sliema residents deserve better treatment (1)

Albert Bonello Dupuis seems to have forgotten that in his letter of January 19 he labelled another Sliema resident as a NIMBY. This is a regular mode of attack by the pro-development lobby. I was shocked that the mayor would use this derogatory term so gratuitously.

Mr Bonello Dupuis is in favour of the Qui-Si-Sana car park and also approves of the commercial development associated with the car park as he is "convinced" that the future parking will not suffice. (If this car park is so badly needed, why the commercial developments?)

The elimination of free visitor parking from the Tigné area will encourage better use of the grossly underutilised High Street car park and should be enough to soak up any parking places displaced by the residents' parking scheme. The new developments will cater for their own parking requirements and will also draw visitors away from Tower Road/Bisazza Street, freeing further spaces there.

The problem is that the Qui-Si-Sana car park is being built on whim, not on facts. On what basis was a 750-space car park dreamt up? Why does the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, in direct contravention of the Aarhus convention, withhold the reason it refuses to carry out an Environment impact assessment (mandatory for car parks as in EU Council Directive 97/11/EC)? The council is fully aware of this but snubs the residents' plea to act on their behalf.

Mr Bonello Dupuis claims that I have deliberately distorted facts. For his benefit I will quote my sources of information chapter and verse.

The 1999 Draft Qui-Si-Sana Development Brief gave the height of Qui-Si-Sana as 8-10m above sea level (1999 Brief Section 2.5). Magically this was altered to 8-13m in the 2002 Brief (2002 Brief Section 2.5) concomitant with the "discovery" that Qui-Si-Sana would make a good site for commercial development (1999 Brief Section 4.6; 2002 Brief Section 4.6).

The removal of all parking from the Manoel Island-Ferries-Tigné stretch of road is enshrined in Mepa Policy NHGT05, as part of the North Harbour Local Plan. This was clearly visible on the ADT plans shown to Mr Bonello Dupuis and the Nationalist councillors in a privileged meeting, prior to their notorious U-turn on the Qui-Si-Sana development brief. This was also the justification given to Qui-Si-Sana residents by Minister George Pullicino for the construction of the Qui-Si-Sana car park. I might also point out that the retailers in Bisazza Street and Tower Road are far from happy with the matter.

The 2002 Qui-Si-Sana Development Brief specifically mentions the introduction of fees for resident parking in Sections 6.2.2 and 6.3.3.

The number of on-street spaces allotted to each household is defined in Section 6.2.4. of the brief.

The brief implies that the control of the scheme is in the hands of the developer, with the council responsible for day-to-day management (2002 Brief Section 6.2.6).

The Qui-Si-Sana Development Brief was approved by the Cabinet and, as far as I am aware, still stands. It is not within the council's power to change the brief, as Mr Bonello Dupuis thinks.

If the intention is to change the brief that is information I am not privy to. However, that will be the second time the brief has undergone a major change without notice, making it a completely different brief to that offered for public consultation in 1999!

Mr Bonello Dupuis does not wish to discuss the car park and the commercial development. Of course he doesn't. The Nationalist councillors don't, Mr Pullicino doesn't, the Prime Minister doesn't. Even when Qui-Si-Sana residents were recently shown the ADT plans for the Tignè/Qui-Si-Sana area, the car park was not up for discussion! Why this closing of ranks? Why the determination to proceed at all costs?

We are so convinced that this development is unnecessary that, with the help of Alternattiva Demokratika, we have presented a 600-signature petition, with signatures from all over the island, to the European Parliament. The application has been processed and will be heard in the near future.

I have said this before and will do so again. We do not oppose positive developments, however we object to the pointless destruction of a garden and residential area.

We ask that the Qui-Si-Sana Development Brief be withdrawn and a decision on the construction of a car park be postponed until the RPZ is working and the new developments are open to the public.

Fresh data may be gathered and then, if necessary, a new traffic and parking scheme devised, which takes into account the well-being of the whole community, both residential and commercial.

Sliema and its residents deserve better treatment than to be sold off piecemeal to developers simply to satisfy the bottom line.

Copies of the 1999 Development Brief and the relevant EC directive regarding environmental impact assessments may be found at www.quisisana.org under "Links"; the 2002 Development Brief is available at www.mepa.org.mt under the "Planning" tab.