Never mind the quality (of life)

I refer to the letter Qui-si-Sana Development Plans by Sylvana DeBono, public relations officer, Malta Environment and Planning Authority (October 26).

Her letter is flawed for a number of points that she chose to ignore. The apparent lack of consultation, the residential parking zone and the commercial outlets are only some of the concerns. Ms DeBono knows very well that the main objections by the residents are:

1. It is their fundamental right to continue to enjoy the same or improved quality of life which they have been enjoying for years;

2. The construction of a huge car park will seriously jeopardise the well-being of the residents;

3. It will undoubtedly cause a deterioration in the quality of the air;

4. It will cause the property value to fall;

5. Car parks within a residential zone are a thing of the past. Today's town planning discourages entry of cars in towns and cities;

6. The viability of the car park is doubtful; and

7. Sliema is desperately in need of green areas.

The construction of a car park signifies that the peaceful way of life in this relatively quiet area will be shattered. Increased amounts of carcinogenic fumes will daily be driven into people's homes as this part of Sliema is subjected to the prevailing winds from the northwest, right round to the east. There will be no escape from the toxic car exhausts emitted directly from the numerous vehicles that will substantially increase in number, apart from the fumes emitted from the ventilation system of the proposed car park itself.

Qui-si-Sana, in this respect, will be transformed into a zone of fumes, traffic noise and chaos. It will become an area of high pollution, turning the lives of its residents into a misery. Mepa seems to have forgotten the fundamental rule that quality of life is more precious than commerce.

Another direct result of the proposed development is that the properties in this area will be adversely affected and their value will fall. Mepa has still to come out with its proposals of how they are going to compensate the owners of these premises. We are told that the CPPS funds to be passed to the developer "are based on the fact that the venture is considered to have a slow payback". At least it is a payback but the residents will have a pay-slide. How about passing the CPPS funds to the residents?

It makes one's mind boggle when one realises that three other car parks are already planned for this area, one to be situated at Tigné Point; another at the town square and a further car park is planned for the Preluna area. Strangely enough, the one being proposed at Qui-si-Sana is in the proximity of the two mega developments.

So I ask myself: What is the real reason for this car park? Is it viable? There is great doubt in this when three other car parks are being or are to be constructed. In fact the Sliema council in January 2003 was reported to have said that the Qui-si-Sana car park is not needed. The "change of use" clause in the brief gives rise to serious doubts as to the final intention of the developer. Maybe he himself knows that this car park is not viable.

Up to 30 years ago, town planning included car parks right in the centre of towns and cities as it was deemed these were necessary to attract visitors from the outside in order to give more life to the city and increase commerce. However, with the passage of time it was found that the ever-increasing traffic required a radical change of thinking as the toxic fumes emitted represent a veritable health hazard for local communities. The health of the citizen is paramount, so now town planners and councils discourage vehicular traffic from entering cities. This is achieved by various means including park and ride, high cost in town parking, residential zones, etc. This is what is being done abroad and this is what Mepa should be aiming for. Let us not make the mistake of attracting even more traffic into Sliema.

Another sore point is that the development brief gives the developer the right to ask for change of use. This brings to mind the car park constructed in High Street. Soon after its construction, the developer changed part of that car park into a supermarket and added a restaurant on top. If there is need of parking areas why was this change of use allowed by Mepa? This is a contradiction. Either there is need of a car park to park cars or not; it is as simple as that.

Sliema is a highly densely populated area bereft of green areas except for the stretch beyond the tower. The proposed development reduces the present size of the garden considerably. The present trees will be uprooted and the soil removed. When the project is finished there may be a layer of around two feet of soil in a greatly reduced area. I ask: What trees will grow in such a shallow depth of soil on top of concrete?

There is a strong objection to the construction of a car park. The residents and visitors to Sliema should be allowed this last piece of non-commercialised land where they can enjoy relative tranquillity and a sense of open space. The gardens should be embellished with flowers, more greenery and a decent children's playground. Outlets are not wanted there when there are so many in Sliema and more are planned within the mega projects.