The Qui-Si-Sana development brief

The assurances given to the people of Sliema by the Mepa's PRO Sylvana Debono and by Environment Minister George Pullicino are based on half truths.

For a start Qui-Si-Sana is on the coastline, as are the Ferries and Tigné, not the periphery of Sliema. A glance at a map will confirm.

The whole scope of the car park is still in question. The brief itself admits on page 2, section 1.3, that the parking problem exists due to "lack of effective control of illegal parking and the availability of parking in nearby residential streets". The High Street car park remains underutilised to this day.

The Midi and town square projects have provided adequate parking for their visitors' needs. The Pjazzetta is also to be turned into an underground car park and construction of the Ghar id-Dud car park should create a further 200 spaces.

Furthermore, the Bank of Valletta headquarters is about to move out of Tagliaferro Centre and take most of its 500 odd employees with it.

The parking problem that exists in the rest of Sliema is nothing to do with visitor parking or shoppers. This is simply due to the high density of car owners and lack of garage space in those areas. If anything, small, strategically placed car parks should be constructed to alleviate the problems in those areas instead of forcing residents to place their cars far away in Qui-Si-Sana.

The residents' parking zone (RPZ) will further exacerbate the parking problems outside the RPZ (where the real problem is), as everyone will park their cars in the "free" areas.

The development brief makes it very clear that the RPZ project is self financing (section 6.3.3) and suggests that charges and fines be introduced for residents and non-residents alike. Furthermore, section 1.5 awards the drawing up of funding and management primarily to the developer. I fail to see how the RPZ can be self financing without the introduction of fees and fines.

The "nominal" fee mentioned is a joke as there is no definition of "nominal" and it will certainly not remain so.

Furthermore the brief specifically excludes reserved parking for Sliema residents. Permits are to be issued on an equal basis to all comers.

The 1999 brief specifically excludes the introduction of commercial premises in the car park. The 2002 brief says exactly the opposite. The only reason this was introduced was to make the car park financially viable. The wording of the brief is "Innovative tourist related/leisure development" (section 1.6) and "which may be coupled with other leisure uses and an element of catering provision" (section5.2.9). This is, in effect, carte blanche to all but the most gullible; the term "innovative" does not bind. A theme bar could be described as innovative.

The minister also admits that a change of use of further areas of the car park is possible if the developer is determined enough. There is plenty of incentive to do so. Mr Pullicino's reassurances do not convince anyone.

There are a number of other major changes to the brief. The primary reason given for construction of the car park in the 1999 brief was the pedestrianisation of Tower Road and Bisazza Street. In 2002 the reason given became the RPZ.

Furthermore, other changes were introduced which were not an issue during the public consultations:

¤ the height of the project was increased by a further three metres above sea level;

¤ the introduction of 7,000 square metres of commercial space;

¤ permission for the above-ground kiosk to have below-ground seating, food preparation and storage facilities.

Given all this, the scope of an 800-space car park is unclear. The statistics the brief is based upon were compiled in 1995 (section 1.2) and are hopelessly out of date.

However Mepa has set a target date of March 17 for issue of the permits. It seems that much energy is being expended to ensure the date is kept.

We maintain there is enough parking space to accommodate an RPZ without the need for a car park at Qui-Si-Sana. The Qui-Si-Sana Residents' Association is calling for a halt to the project and a rethink of strategy before the only remaining open garden space in Sliema is destroyed to make way for an unnecessary, anti-social development.