[TusharK]

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to amend its Development Control Rules and make it mandatory for builders to provide one free car parking space with each flat. Under the current rules, builders are offering fewer parking spaces and customers are being charged extra for a parking spot.



The SCDRC cited a Supreme Court order which states that under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA), a promoter has no right to sell any portion of a building which does not fall under the definition of a 'flat'.

According to the commission, car parking is an "essential amenity" and said that the BMC must ensure that building plans include one car parking space for each flat purchaser. As per the current rules, the developer is liable to provide only one parking space measuring 35 sq.m. for four tenements.

The SCDRC panel said that excess car parking spaces can be reserved for visitors. It also stated that builders who use part of the sanctioned FSI to create parking space should be allowed to sell them at market rates.

Source: Mumbai Mirror

Link to Team-BHP News

[centaur]

As per SC rule, builders cannot sell parking spaces but this is openly flouted all across without any fear. Unless there is a ruthless implementation in place, builders will never take such judgement seriously or just for the sake of compliance they will give some space as a parking space in which you can barely fit an auto and people would end up buying a bigger space anyway.

[silverado]

Builder lobby is aware that anyone who can buy a Flat in Mumbai, can easily shell out some more money for his/her car.

Even if space is mentioned, people are smart enough to flout these rules unless there is strict enforcement.

I have heard of some builder who got a tower car parking on rent for 2-3 months to show officials about parking space, it was removed after that and people had to fight for parking space.

[HKap]

No free lunch. The cost of the parking will be baked into the cost of the flat. In a place like Mumbai, builders can afford to sit on unsold inventory for much longer than some other cities. Most projects are redevelopment projects and if they are able to sell even 60-65% of the project, they recover their cost and everything else will eventually be profit.

This opinion is based on inputs that I get from some of my friends working in the real estate industry. I do not take responsibility for accuracy here. It could be totally off but that's what they say.

[NiInJa]

The court has only re-iterated the law once again, nothing new. New projects usually have enough space to park cars for each flat, but redevelopment projects (especially in Mumbai) have a peculiar situation where they can't accommodate parking space for all flats so this is a sticky situation.

[lamborghini]

Just throwing in my two cents, and would be delighted to be corrected.

1) With RERA coming into effect, most developers will have abide by the rules and regulations set under the DCPR and RERA. MOFA is on it's way out.

2) Under the new DCPR, developers are given parking space as per the norms set out by the BMC. While it is hopeful to have one parking per flat - in a city starved of space, it is often difficult unless they are integrated vertically (podiums / basements, etc.) which often drive the cost of the project up. This is happening due to fire laws, open space requirements, and certain amenities that now have to be positioned on the ground floor rather than on a podium level. Larger layouts will still see scope for parking inclusions, but it is very difficult in the case of most stand alone buildings going in for redevelopment.

3) Most of the buildings facing this issue are old buildings. Most will not have proper paperwork regarding parking allocation.

4) Even if a developer wants to, he cannot provide more than a certain number of parkings as per the BMC norms. Providing more parkings than allowed may be then be counted in FSI which comes at a cost to the developer.
Unless these norms are changed keeping in mind different areas and types of projects - parking will continue to be a problem.
For example, a building in SoBo where the per capita income is higher than say Mulund - parking requirements will be uniform for both properties even though a the SoBo purchaser may have additional vehicles + SoBo has more smaller buildings & plots (refer point above).

5) How the rules work regarding parking - it is not per flat, but as per FSI utilization. If you build a 100,000sq.ft building for example, you would be allotted 100 car parking (or as per prevalent norms depending on type of building - my number may not be accurate, etc.) + 5-25% visitor parking (cannot be sold - only for visitors, rules are constantly changing on this point so just quoting the ranges I have heard). What this means is that in that 100,000 sq.ft building with 100 car parkings - the developer can assign 1 car per 1,000sq.ft of space he sells. Now, should he have flats of 500 sq.ft each, it means that only 50% of the flat buyers can get a parking along with their apartment - which rightfully may be reserved for the more premium apartments, and the 50% less premium apartments don't get parking spots and crowd up the streets.

6) In the past the Govt. had announced a public parking lot policy. Where developers could build a public parking lot, hand it over to the Govt. and get additional FSI in exchange. Unfortunately in the new DCPR that policy though still in existence just doesn't make financial sense to most developers owing to it's high cost (a bulk of which is upfront). Also, many of these lots are often reserved by apartment owners in the area and thus not available for public use / or they are often erected in spots that are too inconvenient for the public to use.

Ideally, IMO the Govt. should form a parking policy keeping in mind the uniqueness of various neighborhoods and the developments being proposed. They could even look at charging a small fee for additional parking for luxury homes who's purchasers wouldn't mind shelling a little extra for a third vehicle parking (but exclude it from the FSI because that would drive up costs of parking considerably).