MEPA CIRCULAR 04/10

1 LPG SECONDARY STORAGE

2 CLARIFICATION OF POLICIES 2.5 AND 10.6 OF DEVELOPMENT
CONTROL POLICY & DESIGN GUIDANCE 2007
3 CLARIFICATION OF SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR
DEVELOPMENT PERMISSION APPLICATIONS
4 ILLEGAL DEVELOPMENT
5 CONSULTEES WITH REPRESENTATIVE AT MEPA OFFICE
6 REPRESENTATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS
7 SUBMISSION OF APPEALS

INTRODUCTION

This circular outlines a new amendment to the existing Development Notification

Order, 2007 introducing a new provision for LPG Secondary Storage. It also
considers the issue of submission requirements of official spot levels and
alignment for development applications. The policy regulating development
between two streets is henceforth being clarified to ensure the resultant
development conforms with the height limitation and topography of the area.

Following the launching of the new submission checklist in November 2010, the
need was felt to clarify the issues of copies of latest submissions and submission
of official spot levels with every application.

1 LPG SECONDARY STORAGE

A secondary storage facility of LPG is by definition a storage of LPG with a

minimum storage capacity of either more than 150 kg of LPG or any six or more
interconnected portable LPG cylinders. The majority of the existent secondary
storage consist of fixed bulk tanks. These bulk tanks can be located over-ground,
completely buried or mounded.

The Malta Resources Authority (MRA) has issued a set of LPG Codes of Practice
which together with the current legislation, LPG Market Regulations (LN 249/2008
as amended by LN 37/2010), are used by warranted engineers to design,
construct, maintain and decommission such storage.

A procedure has been adopted for the installation of LPG tanks storage. As a first
step, the developer contacts the engineer (competent person) who prepares a
proposal for the design and submits it with drawings to the MRA. Analysts of the
Authority vet this proposal, and if it is compliant with the codes of practice, they
inform the developer to apply for planning permission with MEPA.
 New buried/mounded storage less than 4050 litres liquid capacity and over-ground
storage less than 1250 litres liquid capacity will fall under the provisions of a
Development Notification Order. LPG storages larger than these values need a full
development permit. Details of this amended legislation are available by
consulting LN 494/10 which is an amendment to LN 115/07. The development
related to LPG storage tanks is included in Schedule 1, Class 1 (Alterations to
existing buildings and development within the curtilage of buildings) of the Legal
Notice.

The notification for development (DNO) is only required for sites located within
scheduled property, in designated areas, in UCAs or ODZ. In such cases, prior
clearance from MRA shall be submitted with the application form.

On the other hand, the DNO provisions do not apply in the Urban Conservation
Areas (UCAs) of Valletta, Floriana, Cottonera (Bormla, Birgu, Isla), Rabat (Malta)
and Mdina, Rabat (Gozo) and Cittadella, where the installation of these storage
tanks shall also be subject to a full development permit application.

In agreement with MRA, MEPAs responsibility remains that of regulating land use,
whilst MRA, in collaboration with the Civil Protection Department would ensure the
installation is safe. This will occur when competent persons, engineers defined in
MRA legislation, would certify installations in terms of the LPG Codes of Practice
issued by the MRA itself.

The installation shall not be brought into operation until a Compliance Certificate
certifying the development has been carried out in full accordance with conditions
imposed by MRA, has been issued by MEPA.

2 CLARIFICATION OF POLICIES 2.5 AND 10.6 OF POLICY &

DESIGN GUIDANCE 2007

MEPA would like to clarify the interpretation of Policies 2.5 Building Height on Sites
Between Two Streets All Buildings except Detached and Semi-Detached
Dwellings and 10.6 Penthouses of the Policy & Design Guidance 2007 in the case
of developments between two streets.

The height of the development has to be limited to within the best fit line. The best
fit line is that line which joins the highest point of the two height limitations as
indicated in the Local Plan. No development, not even a penthouse may be
permitted beyond the best fit line unless there is extremely strong justification for
such an exception. The stepping should respect the topography of the area.

2
3 CLARIFICATION OF SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR
DEVELOPMENT PERMISSION APPLICATIONS

(a) Section 1.1(a) (Application Forms and related detail requirements) of the
Submission Requirements for Development Permission Applications in Circular
2/10 requires a copy of the latest relevant permission and relevant approved
drawings for the previously approved development.

A copy of the latest permission and approved drawings are only being requested
for development permissions applied for prior to 2007.

(b) Section 1.4 (Technical Details) requires, through paragraph (a), the submission of
official spot levels and an alignment block plan with every application.

Although MEPA strongly encourages periti to check spot levels and official
alignments prior to preparing development proposals, MEPA has reviewed its
development application process and will deal with issues related to alignment and
levels during the screening/application process, where necessary. Thus, the
submission of official spot levels and alignment block plan will no longer be
required.

4 ILLEGAL DEVELOPMENT

The enforcement policy explaining how to deal with illegal development is currently
described in Circulars PA 2/96 and PA 2/98. The procedure on how to regularise
illegal development has now been included in regulation 14 of Legal Notice 514 of
2010, in an effort to consolidate an often complex course of action and facilitate
removal of illegal development.

5 CONSULTEES WITH REPRESENTATIVES AT MEPA OFFICE

As part of the new procedures and reduced timescales, MEPA welcomes the
presence of representatives of two crucial consultees in the planning process,
namely the Kummissjoni Nazzjonali Persuni bDizabilita and Enemalta Corporation.
Both representatives will be able to provide their services to periti/applicants from
the MEPA Planning Shop during the morning office hours on specific days. Whilst
affording greater flexibility, this new practice will render consultations with these
entities more efficient.

3
6 REPRESENTATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The general public can make a representation to the Authority with respect to a
planning application within twenty days from the date of publication of the notice of
an application in a local newspaper, in order to be considered as a statutory
representee. Unless willing to renounce to such rights, third parties should provide
a name and a contact address in order to make identification and communication
possible. Although it is perfectly acceptable for a professional (such as a perit or
lawyer) to write on behalf of a group of persons, MEPA will recognise only the
objector and not his/her representative.

In a bid to render the development process even more fair and transparent, all the
information submitted by any individual making a representation (including their
identity) can now be disclosed. Indeed, letters sent by MEPA to applicants,
informing them that a representation regarding ownership has been received, and
to the objectors themselves, have been revisited with this in mind. Nonetheless,
the identity of any persons reporting illegalities, not as a representation on an
application for development permission, will continue to be protected.

7 SUBMISSION OF APPEALS

Appeals from decisions taken by MEPA are to be made to the Environment and
Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) in accordance with the provisions contemplated
in the Environment and Development Planning Act (2010) and the saved
provisions of the Development Planning Act (1992 as amended).

It should be noted that the Tribunal is a body completely independent from MEPA
and, consequently, appeals are to be submitted physically at the Tribunal's office
and not through the e-Apps system, nor at the MEPA Planning Shop. Appeals
submitted by periti through the e-Apps system cannot be deemed to have been
made to the Tribunal.

Please note that MEPA will not assume any responsibility for the invalidity of
appeals submitted through the e-Apps system (or other methods of submission
other than as directed by the Tribunal) and the Authority will not be obliged to
forward such appeals to the Tribunal or make the Tribunal aware of such appeals.

Perit Christopher Borg

Director of Planning