Sliema and St Julian’s are residential areas, not just tourist or entertainment venues. There are of course many shops and restaurants along the seafront, but there are also thousands of residents. Tower Road and Spinola Bay are full of apartments, let alone the streets behind. Paceville, a nightlife hotspot, has many residents too.
This includes foreign residents, more than anywhere else in Malta, which gives these seaside towns a special atmosphere and lifestyle. This is not new – I grew up in St Julian’s and there were always lots of different nationalities there.
The rights and interests of residents should therefore obviously have some priority. Unfortunately, the government seems to take a different approach.
Sometimes I wonder whether the people who draft our policies have ever set foot in Sliema or St Julian’s, besides entering restaurants or shops in the main streets. The Prime Minister recently visited Sliema for a walk-about, specifically to view the streets and buildings for himself, as though he was touring a foreign town.
The government treats Sliema and St Julian’s as an entertainment, commercial or tourist zone and writes its policies accordingly. They seem unaware (or unconcerned) that the place is actually jam-packed with residents. In other places in Malta, for example, residents parking schemes have been introduced. But Sliema residents were considered less of a priority and the government resisted introducing a similar scheme.
Likewise, when drafting the controversial Paceville master plan they did not initially engage with residents at all. Plenty of studies are available which guide planners on the importance of community engagement for conflict management. Students might use this Paceville plan as a perfect case-study, demonstrating what happens when you ignore this basic principle.
The Planning Authority has explained to the irate residents of Swieqi and St Julian’s that it never looks at land ownership issues when formulating its policies. Ah yes, of course. Can I just point out, however, that extensive expropriation of properties and homes does not often feature in Maltese planning policies either?
The Prime Minister recently visited Sliema for a walkabout, specifically to view the streets and buildings for himself, as though he was touring a foreign town
How can the government possibly link the success of a master plan to expropriation, without taking existing land use and ownership into account? Incredibly, this is what it has done. Earlier this week, Parliamentary Secretary Deborah Schembri tried to defend this Paceville plan at the parliamentary committee. Her favoured tactic seems to have been to loudly interrupt anyone who ventured to put forward an opinion.
Residents are evidently the government’s blind spot, while speculators, developers and some other commercial operators are kept in full vision.
Another case in point is the new policy for outdoor chairs and tables, published last June. Malta may not have a long-standing tradition in this, but tables, chairs and flowerpots are now rapidly multiplying at every corner, especially in Sliema and St Julian’s. The popularity of al fresco dining is growing.
It is one thing to eat outdoors in a square or on a wide pavement. But it is quite another to be crammed onto a street kerbside with cars belching exhaust fumes into your face, and buses and trucks speeding narrowly past.
Judging by the comments on social media, many residents are annoyed at the idea that chairs and tables are now also taking up parking spots. Restaurants are being allowed to build timber platforms and encroach over parking spaces on the road. Outdoor chairs and tables are great for enjoying the sunshine and fresh air, and they create a feeling of vibrancy and life. If handled well, al fresco dining makes street life more pleasant, and is much nicer than an ugly row of parked cars. I am quite happy if people manage to replace cars.
But there is an issue of fairness and equity involved. Is this some kind of land grab? We have seen so much abuse of public land that it is understandable that people are suspicious. Where do the encroachment rights over these public spaces begin and end? These restaurants are making profits by using public resources, but how much is the community receiving in return? The policy does not mention local councils at all.
Restaurants using public spaces to expand their seating area should pay a fair price for this advantage. The proceeds should be received and published by the local council, and spent on embellishing and improving the area to give people something back.
People pay taxes to enjoy good roads and pavements, not for them to be given away for others to make a profit while pedestrians and residents can hardly move. Some restaurant owners become arrogant and abusive, putting out their planters and sandwich boards all over the pavements, taking up even more space than already granted.
Restaurants are only obliged to leave a 1.5-metre corridor for pedestrians, which is not much on a busy pavement. Unsurprisingly, not an inch more is spared, and often people are obliged to walk in single file or step out onto the street to get past.
It is good to have clear regulations. The policy has its benefits, providing guidelines on layout and management, including details like planters, heaters and awnings. As always, however, its success depends on how it is interpreted and enforced.
petracdingli@gmail.com