Carmel Cacopardo, who last week spoke out against the construction of a supermarket on agricultural land on the outskirts of Safi, was the architect responsible for an application for a development of a similar size across the road.
At a news conference in front of the newly-built St Benedict College in Kirkop, limits of Safi, last Sunday, Mr Cacopardo teamed up with Alternattiva Demokratika to argue that the construction of a supermarket in the area was yet another case where the Malta Environment and Planning Authority had "lost all sense of logic, direction and credibility".
A former deputy general secretary of the Nationalist Party and staunch Mepa critic, Mr Cacopardo commented on the fact that the Planning Directorate within the authority had recommended that the application should be refused.
He argued that the Department of Agriculture had objected to the development in a letter and the local plan identified the land in question as agricultural. He queried the use of a local plan if its policies were ignored where it really mattered.
However, Mr Cacopardo had himself applied for a permit on a site roughly the same size on the opposite side of the road in July 1995. The application was for an outline permit for a number of terraced houses, garages and maisonettes over 47 plots. When the permit was refused, an appeal was lodged, though this was also turned down.
The application was refused by the Development Control Commission as the site was outside the limits for development defined in the temporary provisions scheme for Safi. It was also argued that the proposed development was incompatible with the urban design and environmental characteristics of the area and that it would not maintain the visual integrity of the area, and so did not comply with Structure Plan policies.
In an appeal presented in May 1996, Mr Cacopardo had argued that the proposal did not run counter to any Structure Plan policies as a permit for a garage had been issued on an adjacent site. He argued that the permit for a garage in the area had set a precedent and the Development Control Commission could not approve an application and at the same time declare adjacent land unsuitable for development.
When contacted yesterday, Mr Cacopardo said he had no personal interest in the land in question and was merely an architect who submitted an application in the same way as any other architect.
"I acted professionally, like a lawyer who defends a client and who does not necessarily agree with what his client had done. In this case I recall telling my clients that I was against such a development, that agricultural land was involved and that the application would be refused because of this. But still they wanted an official decision.
"Had Mepa taken the same decision, the supermarket should have been refused because the recommendation for refusal was the same as for my application. Now it's even worse because there is a Local Plan while at that time there was not. It's Mepa's decision-making process that's wrong," Mr Cacopardo said.