|
Matthew Vella
They complained and they got what they wanted. The Malta Environment and Planning Authority will be now be asking for less money, even dishing out refunds to contractors and developers after ‘redefining’ its policy on the commuted parking payment fees on new buildings.
It was a policy meant to collect fees for the creation of added traffic pressures when new buildings such as apartment blocks went up. The Commuted Parking Payment Scheme charged fees running in tens of thousands to developers unable to provide parking facilities for their projects. Monies collected funded the construction of car parks.
But the structure plan’s TRA4 has been changed, or rather MEPA has adopted a single interpretation of TRA4, after a complaint was lodged from the developer of the old Promenade Hotel in Tower Road, Sliema, which has now been re-erected into an eight-floor apartment block that will house 14 apartments, a penthouse and other commercial outlets.
The applicant, John Aquilina, was awarded a refund of Lm26,100 after complaining that the policy was being applied inconsistently in cases involving the demolition of a structure and its reconstruction, where the parking fees being demanded did not take into consideration the previous permits allowed on the previous building.
According to MEPA, Aquilina had been asked to pay a CPPS fee of Lm31,500 – his proposal also includes the provision of the ground floor and an intermediate floor for a cafeteria.
Aquilina’s complaint in fact pushed the authority to instruct the planning directorate to propose an interpretation of the structure plan’s transport policy.
On 3 February 2005, the MEPA board decided that in cases of redevelopment, the parking requirements of the existing structure would be deducted in the computation of the parking requirments of the new development.
MEPA told MaltaToday the board considered two interpretations of TRA4, accepting the one where the parking requirements of a proposed building would be calculated by deducting the parking provision already provided for.
The Ministry for Environment has told MaltaToday it views the MEPA board decision “in a positive light” since the new interpretation provides consistency.
“For some applications for redevelopment, the parking requirements of the existing structure were taken into account in calculating CPPS payments. For others this was not. The policy was being interpreted in an inconsistent manner.”
The application to demolish the Promenade Hotel and construct three basement levels for 33 car spaces, as well as commercial outlets had been recommended for refusal by the MEPA case officer who pointed out the development ran counter to policies on good urban design and that the penthouse was not receded.
But following a meeting with the applicant’s architect the reasons for the objections were removed and the Development Control Commission granted the permit.
In this case however, the old Promenade Hotel never participated in the CPPS and no refund was issued for the old building, which places doubt on the principle adopted in this case.
“The refund issued to the new development did not consider the activity of the existing Promenade Hotel when calculating parking requirements. In this case, parking requirements were only required for the additional development.”
However the new policy is also going to be applied retroactively: applications whose parking requirements were not calculated in line with this interpretation will also be refunded, which means government will be giving out more thousands to developers who had already paid their dues according to the original policy.
MEPA said that any CPPS contributions calculated without considering the development prior to reconstruction will all be refunded, when asked how far back the retroactive measure will apply.
matthew@newsworksltd.com
|
