From the Qui-si-Sana Residents Association

The Qui-si-Sana development brief should be scrapped and re-thought from the start for the following reasons:

The statistics the Development Brief is based on were compiled in 1995 and are hopelessly out of date.

Since that date there have been several large projects approved and started. The full impact of these projects cannot be assessed until these are up and running.

The objections of the residents to the 1999 brief were ignored. Not only that, but a number of substantial changes were subsequently made, namely:

The introduction of a tourism related project, directly opposing the view of the previous Brief.

The introduction of 7,500 sq m of commercial space.

The extension of the Kiosk under present floor level.

The heights of the projects differ, the 2002 brief increases the permitted height by a further three metres above sea level.

Pedestrianisation – the original reason for building the car park has been dropped from the second brief.

It is up to MEPA to ensure that developments provide adequate parking. The new developments have already provided adequate parking for their own and their visitors’ needs. These will not aggravate the parking problem, however the proposed construction of the Qui-si-Sana Car Park will worsen traffic congestion and increase the noise and atmospheric pollution in the area.

* Qui-si-Sana is on the coastline, not the periphery of Sliema. The concept of building large car parks close to residential areas was dropped in the seventies. The emphasis now is on alleviating traffic by improving public transport. Provision of surplus parking spaces will simply encourage more traffic. The Tigne peninsula will be enclosed in a ring of toxic exhaust fumes.

It makes no sense to concentrate all the parking in the Tigne peninsula (there are already four large car parks projected for the area). This will not solve the Sliema parking problem, as the rest of Sliema will not be within easy walking distance.

Once these other car parks are completed there will be adequate parking available for an RPZ to be introduced. The High Street Car Park is rarely full and with the imminent departure of BOV from the Tagliaferro Centre, a large number of onstreet spaces will be released. If anything, Sliema requires a number of small, strategically placed car parks around the town to alleviate local parking problems.

The residents oppose the introduction of payment for onstreet parking. Here clause 6.3.3.of the development brief is very clear: “The RPZ study should also indicate how the Local Council shall generate revenue for the ongoing administration of the scheme. This may include charging for short stay/onstreet parking, fines and/or a nominal annual fee to residents joining the scheme.”

Paragraph 1.5 also makes it clear that the funding and management arrangements shall be drawn up by the developer, with the Local Council only having a minor say in the matter. There is no definition of what constitutes a ‘nominal’ fee. In any case this only applies for the first three years and ‘nominal’ fees never remain so.

There is no scheme to improve parking for Sliema residents. Permits for onstreet parking will be limited and will be for sale to all bidders, resident or not, on an equal basis.

The only short-term surface parking envisaged will be at the Ferries and will only be on a temporary basis, as the stretch of road from Gzira to the Ferries is due to be turned into a ‘No Stopping’ zone.

We oppose the introduction of commercial space into the project.

Sliema is already saturated with commercial outlets. Further outlets may not survive and become derelict. The Jumbo Lido is a prime example.

The introduction of such a large amount of commercial space shows that there exist grave doubts about the feasibility of the car park.

Paragraph 5.2.9 states that the developer is allowed 7000 sq m of commercial floor space which may be used for leisure and catering purposes. The phrase “Innovative Tourist Related/Leisure Facilities” is too vague and does not bind the developer in any respect.

There is no specific exclusion of “change of use”. This is always possible through change of contract.

The introduction of leisure/entertainment facilities will destroy the residential character of the area.

This project, as proposed, is unnecessary and antisocial. Any decision on the Qui-Si-Sana Car Park should be postponed until the new developments in the area are complete, in order that a proper impact assessment may be carried out.

Qui-si-Sana Residents Association