It is not a residential area, it is only Qui-si-Sana

Peter Gingell’s letter (December 24) confirms that the concerns of the Qui-si-Sana and Tigné Residents Association and the Sliema Residents Association are well founded.

The North Harbour Local Plan (NHLP) 2006 specifically excludes Class 6 developments – bars, restaurants and tea/coffee shops – from residential areas. Mr Gingell denies transposing a Paceville policy, however, the only part of the local plan which makes provision for low impact Class 6 premises is policy NHPV14 and the only area this policy may be applied is Paceville.

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority’s DCC decision to allow such entertainment outlets in the Qui si-Sana residential area where the local plan precludes it, as parroted by the Appeals Board, is simply a verbatim transcript of this Paceville policy.

Moreover, the Retail Planning Guidelines (2004), formulated specifically for Mepa’s guidance, only make provision for Class 4a shops (retail sale of goods only), with special restrictions within residential areas. The wording of both these legal documents makes it all too clear what the law implies.

Mr Gingell and the Appeals Board make much of the prohibition of tables and chairs outside the premises. However, they neglected to mention that this would be impossible in any case as the pavement is only one metre wide. The Appeals Board also conveniently neglected to define the size of a “small” bar or take into consideration the collective impact of a number of these “small” developments on the residential character of the neighbourhood. It is common knowledge that the Paceville phenomenon started by one bar acting as a stimulus for others to open nearby.

With this highly irresponsible ruling, not only has Mepa laid the foundations for another Paceville, but has actually left the door wide open for a new type of speculation. To add insult to injury, the Appeals Board ruling states “after all, this is not the residential core, but only Qui-si-Sana”.

It is pertinent to note that the Appeals Board’s decision was based on the adjacent shop which also acts as a bar. Although nowhere is the concept of precedent to be found in Mepa’s constitution, this is often exploited as an excuse to permit development. Moreover, the adjacent shop was never in possession of a permit to act as a bar and only had a Class 4 shop permit. So much so that a Class 6 café/bar permit had in fact been applied for and the decision to grant the permit was deferred pending the decision of the Appeals Board on this case. This scandalous charade says much about the professional attitude of the officers concerned and casts doubt on the validity of the judgement.

Mr Gingell’s letter confirms that, despite the Prime Minister’s assertion that precedent does not constitute valid planning grounds, Mepa intends to allow exploitation of loopholes in the North Harbour Local Plan as it sees fit. The Appeal Board’s reckless decision verifies that residential areas in Sliema may be degraded at whim, in direct contravention of the NHLP’s primary policy. Although frustrated in its attempt to turn the Qui-si-Sana Garden into a commercial entity, it seems Mepa has cut off Tigné and Qui-si-Sana from the rest of Sliema in planning terms and will continue to target it as a prime area for accommodation of speculators’ interests.