Kamra tal-Periti slams Planning Authority's revision of 'loss of onsite parking' fees

Malta’s chamber of architects and civil engineers has lashed out at a decision by the planning authority to revise fees developers are forced to pay should they not provide parking spaces within their development.

In a statement issued on Friday, the PA announced that it had set up a national Green Transport Fund in order to support capital projects that will improve “the land transportation situation in Malta”.

It said that 30% of the revised fees that developers will have to pay for not providing the necessary parking spaces will go to the fund, which will be open to all entities, including governmental, and which will decided upon by the authority following a competitive process.

“The new revised rates will better reflect the market value of garage spaces and will be homogenous for all localities,” the PA said.

It added that a three-tier system would be introduced whereby a one car space not provided will cost the developer €2,500.

“From the third to the ninth car space not provided for on site, the developer will have to make a contribution of €6,000 per car space. From the tenth car space upwards a €10,000 contribution per car space will be imposed.

The Planning Authority pointed out that the old contribution system had been established since the 90s and specified fees that were lower than those introduced on Friday.

“So as not to adversely effect small businesses, the Authority did not drastically raise the fees where there is a shortfall of up to two cars,” it said. “The contribution is significantly steeper for larger developments and should act as a deterrent for developers that opt out of providing onsite parking.”

Radical changes made without consultation

In a statement, the Kamra tal-Periti accused the PA of introducing the changes by stealth, without consulting with the necessary stakeholders.

“The Kamra tal-Periti condemns the behavior of the Planning Authority, which is arrogant enough to triple, quadruple and quintuple its revenue generating mechanisms, without deigning to even consult anybody in the industry, and without giving a decent notice to the principal actors in the industry,” it said. 

It added that by doing so, the PA had unnecessarily created a situation where panicked developers pressured architects to submit planning applications by midnight, jamming the PA’s servers as a result.

It chamber said it had “strong reservations” about a scheme “which is disguised as planning policy intended to help alleviate traffic problems, but which is nothing more than a crude revenue-generating mechanism”.

Moreover, it questioned whether after 20 years of the previous scheme, the PA had any evidence indicating that the policy had actually helped alleviate traffic, a way of thinking it said had long since been abandoned in most industrialized countries.  

“The provision of more parking encourages the use of private vehicles as opposed to public transport, and therefore it promotes road traffic congestion,” the chamber said.  

“Research has shown that parking provision can actually be a disincentive against public transport, especially if it were free for the users of the building. The Planning Authority should have first studied whether, rather than promoting minimum parking provision standards, it ought to establish maximum standards of affiliated parking facilities. It could also have studied how many of garages in new developments are actually being sold to buyers of apartments, rather than left vacant, and hence not contributing to the envisaged alleviation of traffic congestion.”

It called on the PA to reverse the proposed changes and to undertake “a proper study on the impact of such schemes on traffic patterns and use of public transport”.

It said planning was “too important” to be left solely to the PA and that broader consultation would be beneficial to Malta.

“The Planning Authority needs to radically review its current planning paradigms and policies, and learn from international best practice in this field to provide a more holistic and comprehensive planning system,” it said, adding that the PA should be focusing on its primary role of planning “rather than just focusing exclusively on development permitting”.