Court requests Tribunal to reassess refusal based on alleged loss of parking

Following this decision, the applicant lodged an appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, insisting inter alia that the Commission’s assessment was based on the preamble that the proposal would result in the loss of parking in relation to the overlying apartment block, when in fact, the applicant (who is the owner of the garage in question) bears no connection whatsoever with the said overlying apartment.

The applicant maintained that if the permit for the apartment were dependent on the provision of onsite parking, such permit should not have been issued in the first place since consent by the garage owner (in this case, the applicant) was never given.

On its part, the Tribunal was not impressed by the applicant’s arguments, concluding inter alia that on-site parking requirements are calculated on the number of apartments (or any other uses for that matter) existing or proposed in that particular block, irrespective of “title”. The Tribunal went on to state that parking provision is not necessarily intended to be used exclusively by the overlying apartments – rather, MEPA should ensure that sites are “furnished with an acceptable amount of off-street parking” with a view to enhance the amenity of the immediate area.

Existing garages cannot be considered for the purpose of parking requirements necessitated by third party development in the same block

In turn, the applicant lodged an appeal against the Tribunal’s decision before the Civil Court (Inferior Jurisdiction) stating that the garage in question (which belongs to the applicant, now the appellant) cannot be considered for the purpose of parking requirements necessitated by third party development for the simple reason that he (the applicant) never gave consent to this effect. Even so, the garage in question was never subjected to such a condition when the permit for its construction was originally issued.

In its assessment, the Court found that the Tribunal was bound to establish whether the applicant was correct to state that he had not given his consent to third party owners, in which case the applicant’s request must be reassessed in such light.

[email protected]

Robert Musumeci is a warranted architect and civil engineer. He also holds a Masters Degree in Conservation and a degree in law