He is the Nationalist Party's mayor in Siggiewi but he is better known for the controversial permit applications he has defended as an architect. Robert Musumeci talks to Kurt Sansone.

You are known as the architect for outside development zones (ODZ). Does this title bother you?

I do not think it is a just title. If one were to look at the statistics published by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) they show that between 2001 and 2009 there were some 7,000 applications for developments in ODZ areas. I assume responsibility for a small proportion of these applications.

You had boasted about having had a number of successful applications in ODZ areas. Yet, the government run by the political party you form part of is now claiming a zero tolerance policy on ODZ applications. Are you comfortable with this policy?

I did not boast. A journalist from The Times had asked me for an explanation on how a number of applications that were recommended for refusal by the case officer were overturned by the Development Control Commission board members and I explained that it was my role to defend the applications. It is the job of every architect to defend his client's application.

Are you comfortable with the policy of zero tolerance?

We should define zero tolerance because there are regulations that define what can be built in an ODZ area. Agricultural activity has to be situated in an ODZ area. If the country were to build a power station there is no doubt that it would have to be situated in an ODZ area. Even the Structure Plan provides for activities to be located in ODZ areas, if they cannot be situated in built-up areas.

There is no doubt that agriculture has to be situated in an ODZ area because that is where farming is practised but what happens in many cases is that two or three rooms used by farmers to store equipment are redeveloped into a farmhouse with a swimming pool. This ceases to be agriculture...

This is a perception. There are occasions where these situations have arisen but it is not the norm. Every case has to be dealt with on its own merits. For each application the case officer gives his recommendations which are refuted by the architect, who acts like a lawyer. The architect bases his arguments on policy and case law, which cannot be ignored.

Don't you think there have been too many applications where the case officer's recommendations have been overturned by the DCC?

The reason is that the case officer is constrained to follow policy by the book. Let us assume that an application for development is conditioned by 20 policies. The project satisfies 19 policies but goes against one. This means that the case officer is obliged to recommend refusal. What could happen is that between the time when the recommendation is made and the board's decision, the architect makes the necessary changes to satisfy even that policy. However, on the website one only sees that the recommendation was for refusal and the decision was 'grant'. One has to analyse every stage of an application but all decisions taken have a justification attached to them.

One of your arguments in the Baħrija case was based on the fact that some 110 metres away from the site there had been a similar development that was granted permission. Your application was also given the green light but a public outcry prompted an investigation, which confirmed that the last permit was issued illegally. Had the development gone ahead five years down the line somebody else would have used your application as a justification for another development in the area.

In our case the application was submitted on the basis that there had already been a development on the site and we wanted to make it habitable once more. This philosophy had been accepted by the DCC in another 742 applications for dwellings similar to ours between 2001 and 2009 in ODZ areas.

The alleged illegality revolves around the fact that the application we submitted was in a special area of conservation and during the process Mepa failed to perform a screening process required by law. It was Mepa that failed to do this, not the applicant or the architect. Once this was not done the authority initiated the process to withdraw the permit and I have to abide by the legal parameters even if it is not my nor my client's fault.

Who should shoulder the blame for this mistake?

One has to determine who had to identify the need for this additional screening process. I am in no way saying that this was done maliciously because if one were to look at all developments granted a permit in a Special Area of Conservation, I have my doubts as to how many of the cases were submitted for screening.

Is it the Mepa chairman who should shoulder responsibility or the DCC board members?

I am not here to judge anybody. Someone should be blamed if the intent was malicious. The case officer, in his report, might not have given an indication that the screening process should have been held but I don't think it was done on purpose.

However, in the Baħrija case, apart from the last permit being deemed illegal, the Mepa auditor clearly said that in all stages of the application process policy was ignored.

The auditor is entitled to his opinion but he was also the chairman of the DCC for a number of years and under his guidance ODZ applications were approved. Even as an architect he had a number of ODZ applications that were granted permits.

But what about your case?

I am mentioning this just to prove the point that there was nothing particular about the way the Baħrija permit was issued. It was the universal way in which decisions were taken. A case officer recommends refusal based on his evaluation of Mepa policy but these are rebutted on the basis of other policies or interpretation.

The Baħrija site is very sensitive environmentally, so much so that it is afforded the highest level of protection. Did you give your client the right advice?

I give advice based on policy and case law. The rationale on which the DCC takes decisions after evaluating all the arguments put forward is fundamental to the whole planning process and I take that into consideration when giving advice to clients. Policy must not be interpreted in a vacuum.

Have you ever exerted any pressure whatsoever or met with DCC board members on the Baħrija case?

Absolutely not. I never exerted pressure in this case or any other case. As for the Baħrija case I did not even talk to the case officer even though the system encourages you to discuss it with him. It was a normal application like any other. My role is to analyse what the case officer is saying and present my arguments.

Your way of looking at the DCC makes one wonder whether a client should have an architect or a lawyer presenting his case.

I have to defend my client.

You are saying that through argumentation you can convince the DCC to overturn a negative recommendation even if it goes against policy. Does this mean that there is no place for objectivity in the planning process?

The policy is there to give a guideline. A case officer may quote certain policies but ignore others. It is up to me to carry out the necessary research to defend the case by quoting policies that may have been ignored and which would be saying something different. However, I also quote previous decisions to establish a sense of consistency so that my client is not discriminated against.

Environmentalists do not agree with this line of argumentation. They contend that there have been a number of mistaken decisions and these are continuously used as a justification to allow more development to take place.

A permit is only a mistake when it is revoked.

You are being legalistic.

I have to abide by the law. A permit can only be described as wrong if it is revoked. Planning law includes Article 39A, which can be applied to revoke permits. This section of the law can be invoked if an applicant submits fraudulent information intended to misguide the decision makers, if during the planning process the law was prejudiced in any way or on grounds of public health and safety.

As long as a permit remains confirmed, in my eyes, in the eyes of the state and the eyes of the public it should be perceived as valid.

Let's take a ridiculous example. Say you were to submit an application to turn Castille into a hotel, restaurant and nightclub. You put forward your argument before the DCC and manage to convince them. The permit would be legally issued but would it be right?

My role is not that of decision-maker. Nor am I here to pass a moral judgment on applications. I do not form part of a decision-making body, I defend clients...

And would you also defend such a development?

No, because at face value that permit would never be issued. I know there is no policy or case law that would support my case and I would refuse to submit such an application. However, in those cases where I believe that prevalent policy or case law determined by the DCC or the appeals board can guide my argument, then I would be prepared to defend such a case.

Are environmentalists a hindrance to your job?

They have an important role to play in this country and I respect them despite differing opinions we might have.

You asked the police to investigate (FAA spokesperson) Astrid Vella.

I respect her role but even though she does a good job I felt that on the Baħrija case she made defamatory comments in my regard. I only followed legal procedures (to clear my name).

Victor Scerri resigned as PN president. Should his resignation be the only one?

Dr Scerri resigned because he felt that the best way possible to defend his case was as a private citizen. It was his decision but I believe it had nothing to do with the merits of the case.

Did you agree with his resignation?

It is his decision and I respect it.

You are mayor of Siġġiewi. The council recently approved a motion presented by deputy mayor Karol Aquilina asking government not to renew the rent of the Labour Party (PL) club. Was this your way of getting back at Labour for exposing the Baħrija case?

Absolutely not. I have a very good relationship with the Labour Party and I believe that it has an important democratic role to play in the country. The Labour councillors in this locality make an important contribution and I do not want to be the person who in any way hinders the work of the PL.

You are taking their club...

The spirit of the motion was to transfer the site currently occupied by the Labour Party to the council for use as a day care centre. This was done also in view of the fact that the rent agreement, of which I had no details, will expire in June next year. At face value the aim of the motion was valid. However, I must stress that I do not want any action on my part to hinder the PL's operations.

Why are you limiting your answer to "your action"?

You are asking me. If we could find an alternative site from where the Labour Party could function I would be the first to help the party continue operating.

Were you comfortable with the motion?

The motion came before me and I voted in favour. However, in no way do I want my political behaviour to hinder the Labour Party. I have immense respect for Labour's representatives and they have an important democratic role to play.

In the last local elections you were the only Nationalist mayor to have witnessed an increase in votes despite the PN's general downturn. You partially attributed this to Labourites who may have voted for you. Do you expect the same to happen next time around after the Labour club issue?

I will be working to the best of my ability so that any fissure that may have appeared after this case will be repaired. There are people from the PL who are irked by this incident and for me this is not a pleasant situation. I will be doing my utmost to find a solution to the problem.

You are admitting that it is not a pleasant situation but were you comfortable with the motion? Would you have presented it yourself?

The motion was presented before me and at face value its content was politically valid.

I could not vote against the motion but I cannot ignore the repercussions it created. It is my moral and political responsibility as mayor to try and fix the problem. I do not want to have Labour representatives in this village who cannot function.

Is Karol Aquilina vying for your post as mayor?

The people will decide that.

Do you have enemies in the PN?

I would not say so but like any other person in politics I may have ideas that do not conform with the prevalent direction.

Let me put it another way. Is Robert Musumeci an uncomfortable person for the PN?

You have to put that question to somebody else.

Are you comfortable with the party?

I militate in the Nationalist Party and I am a mayor on behalf of the party. I am comfortable with the general principles of the party but I may be more on the liberal side and it is not necessarily in conformity with the prevalent idea. I have occupied the post of mayor for the past nine years and will have done so for 11 years by the next election. I have always reaped positive results for the party in Siġġiewi. My presence in the party in Siġġiewi has worked well despite any differences.

Have you been approached by the Labour Party to contest on its behalf?

It is not the case. I militate in the PN and the PL understands that I have a role to play in the PN. It is too far-fetched and I have not had this request.

Watch excerpts of the interview on timesofmalta.com