A witness statement raises the mystery of a restaurant that was built 'without a project'

Engineer Óscar Galván confirms that he was commissioned to prepare a construction project to try to "legalize" the restaurant when it had been finished for years and had even been sealed off. "I understand that if there had been another one before, mine would not have been necessary."

February 11 2020 (20:21 WET)
Witness statement raises mystery of restaurant built 'without a project'
Witness statement raises mystery of restaurant built 'without a project'

After four days of trial in the Stratvs case, it remains a mystery who developed and designed the restaurant that was built next to the winery, since no one has taken charge of that intervention and the project has not appeared, despite being essential to carry out any work. The only one on record was made years after the restaurant was built, when it had even been sealed off by the Yaiza Town Hall, and its author testified this Tuesday as a witness. 

"I'm not very clear why I'm here," began engineer Óscar Galván, despite already testifying in the investigation phase of this case and even participating in the hearing on precautionary measures held in 2013, which ended with the order to close the entire complex. In fact, he himself later acknowledged that Juan Francisco Rosa commissioned him to prepare the project to contribute it to that hearing and to try to "legalize" the installation, which had been inaugurated years ago.

In the case of the winery, the project was prepared by the architect Miguel Ángel Armas Matallana, who was also the owner of a part of the land and is also accused in the case along with Juan Francisco Rosa. However, in his statement he assured that he had not had any intervention in the construction of the rest of the complex. In this way, he tried to disassociate himself from that part of the works, which have no coverage or permission of any kind. The license only authorized the rehabilitation of a house and the construction of a 900-meter winery-warehouse -although the winery itself ended up tripling the authorized size-, but it did not authorize the restaurant, the store, the terraces, or the rest of the rooms and facilities.

 

"I was commissioned to regularize the situation"


"I was commissioned to regularize the situation," Óscar Galván declared. Regarding whether there was a construction project prior to his, which should have been carried out to carry out the construction, he assured that he does not know and that he "does not remember" if it was shown to him in his day.

"I am asked because apparently there was no project or it was not in the Town Hall," "I understand that if there had been another one before, mine would not have been necessary," he responded to questions from the prosecutor and the private prosecution, despite the fact that all work requires a project to define how it will be executed. In addition, he assured that he did not participate in the construction or in any previous project and that he limited himself years later to "studying" what had already been built and to "reviewing" and "checking what was right or wrong" to undertake works if necessary.

"A project is an idea and it remained a mere project," he added, defending that "this type of work is common" to "legalize" works. However, this widespread practice among promoters of illegal works -who then present projects to try to legalize them- does not explain the mystery of how the Stratvs restaurant was built then. And it is that no work can be carried out without a project that guides the works, and in this case neither the document has appeared nor has anyone assumed its authorship or the direction of that part of the works.

 

Defense witness but refutes his theses


In addition to that restaurant project prepared in 2013, this engineer also had other interventions in Stratvs. In fact, his summons as a witness was requested by the defense of Miguel Ángel Armas Matallana, who began by asking him about his signature on the "final certificate of work of the facilities" of the complex in 2007. "That certificate was only for a gas installation," the witness specified.

Thus, although he acknowledged that this was done under his direction, he insisted that it was "a very specific project," "a very specific" gas installation, "to feed some boilers to heat water." However, contrary to what the defense intended to argue, he stated that he "cannot assure" that the rest of the Stratvs works had been completed in 2007. The importance of the date lies in the strategy that the accused marked from the first day of the trial, when their defenses alleged that the crimes would have prescribed. For its part, the prosecution not only denies this extreme, but also maintains that the works continued until many years later, and that other subsequent works were also carried out to expand the facilities built on protected land.

 

"My report did not talk about whether there was contamination"


For his part, the lawyer of the former manager of the Insular Water Council, José Juan Hernández Duchemín, asked him about another project he signed, relating to the wastewater system of Stratvs. "My report talks about pipes and little else. Not about treatment or discharges," the witness replied, also downplaying that document. "It concludes that they were correct at that time, but it is about a water evacuation system, not a treatment system. The report does not talk about contamination," he reiterated, referring to the crime against the environment for which Rosa and Duchemín himself are accused, for having authorized that discharge system despite public reports that warned of high levels of contamination.

On this point, the lawyer for the prosecution, Irma Ferrer, emphasized that this project was carried out when the work had been executed for four years and when the restaurant had already been closed by order of the Town Hall. "How could you see wells and septic tanks if it is underground, under foundations, and also the restaurant was sealed off?" she asked him.

"Let's see, I entered the restaurant when I did the project, I am very clear about that. It is true that there was no public, but I entered to do the report," "I remember having opened manhole covers to see what the route of the pipes was, I remember having contrasted with other projects that they gave me," he replied. Regarding those previous projects that the property gave him, the lawyer recalled that one of them recognizes that the winery has a total area of 2,543 meters, when only 900 had been authorized, and insisted on asking the witness if it was an industrial winery, which is one of the things that the defense denies.

"I don't know the use," the witness stated, who tried to avoid the question on several occasions, repeating that what he did was a sanitation project. "And to make a report, do you not distinguish whether it is a house, a craft winery or an industry?" the lawyer for the prosecution asked him. "If that is the question, I would say that it is an industrial winery," he ended up answering.

Most read