The Qui-Si-Sana Residents Association questioned why the Malta Environment and Planning Authority had not yet turned down what it termed as the “new outrageous proposals” made by C&F contractors in connection with the development of a car park and a mixed use complex, insisting that the new plans exceed the specifications of the development brief.

Contacted by The Malta Independent, association secretary C.A.L. Dunkerley said he had gone to the Mepa offices along with another resident and MLP councillor Martin Debono to review the new plans submitted by the developer. “Well, the new plans have nothing to do with the original 2002 plan. Off the top of my head there are proposals to have the garden on a split level, there are plans to have two restaurants and two wine bars, all of which is new. To be fair, both Minister George Pullicino and the nationalist councillors are saying that they disagree and that the developer should stick to the original plan.”

However, he continued, the PN councillors are being inconsistent when saying that the developer should stick to brief “nothing more and nothing less”, since this means that there will be a residents’ parking scheme for a third of Sliema and not the town, as the council had said it wanted time and again.

In the statement issued by PN councillors, to which Mr Dunkerley was reacting, it was said that if a resident parking zone were introduced for Qui-Si-Sana only without providing adequate off-street parking, current parking problems at Qui-Si-Sana would simply be transferred to other parts of Sliema. For this reason, the PN councillors reiterated their support for the car park and the need for the RPZ to eventually cover the whole of Sliema.

The residents are vehemently against the development of a 600-car parking complex which includes some commercial establishments and have voiced their opposition during several, considerably loud, meetings with the council and the minister responsible. The matter was even taken before the Prime Minister. However, so far, no arrangement agreeable to the residents was reached.

The association also issued an official statement in which it emphasised that there is still no guarantee that the developer will abide by the brief. Abuse is rampant and there is no confidence in Mepa’s ability to control abuse. “Mr George Pullicino’s empty promises mean nothing,” the statement added.

Furthermore, the RPZ covers Qui-Si-Sana and the adjacent one-third of Sliema; therefore, its introduction will simply transfer the parking problems to the neighbouring areas of Sliema where the problem is already far worse than that in Qui-Si-Sana.

The residents also criticised the fact that the Commuted Parking Payment Scheme (CPPS) funds were being used as a criterion for assessing the need for resident parking, saying that this argument is misleading as the majority of the funds were collected from large commercial enterprises in the Tower Road and Bisazza Street area.

There is no parking problem anywhere in Tigne/Qui-Si-Sana by night, which indicates that the problem is not caused by the residents’ cars as the minister would have people believe, the statement continued. Furthermore the provision of 2,000 or so other public parking spaces in the Tigne area by the new development will further relieve the competition by visitors for parking spaces. In fact, there has never been any study on parking needs in Sliema, the statement pointed out. The justification for this project is based on ministerial whims not facts, it stressed.

“We maintain that there is no need for a further car park in the Tigne peninsula. Furthermore, we ask why the local council agrees to spending a quarter million liri of Sliema’s funds on such a dubious, unnecessary project, when the money could be far better used to help solve the problem in central and western Sliema where no RPZ is planned. By insisting on following the brief, “no more no less” the council is contradicting its promise to provide an RPZ for the whole of Sliema.”

Proposals for car parks underneath the Salesian’s grounds and the Tower playground have been “forgotten” or ignored, Mepa’s policy being that off-street parking has to be in Qui-Si-Sana, the association continued.

The provision of all this parking space on the Tigne/Qui-Si-Sana peninsula on the eastern edge of Sliema cannot by any stretch of the imagination serve the needs of the central and western side of Sliema. We hope that in time, the council will come to realise this too, it added.

The Qui-Si-Sana Residents Association views the brief as a blatant attempt to relocate the commercial town centre and sell off the remaining quiet open space in Sliema for development. The residents of Qui-Si-Sana are in favour of a solution to Sliema’s parking problem.

However, the Qui-Si-Sana development brief provides no real solution.

“We ask for the council’s support in calling for the brief to be withdrawn and a RPZ introduced for the whole of Sliema, with CPPS funds being spent where there is a proven need,” the statement concluded.