The Supreme Court (TS) has once again annulled, for the third time, the General Planning Plan (PGO) of the Lanzarote municipality of Yaiza, rejecting the request by two companies and the City Council for a partial rather than total suspension.
The ruling determined the annulment of the entire document approved that year for disregarding the indications of two reports on roads issued by the Government of the Canary Islands and the Cabildo.
The dispute centers on two proposed roundabouts in Playa Blanca that did not meet the required safety standards, as warned by these ignored reports.
In this case, it was requested to annul the ruling that favored a company that managed to invalidate the approval by the Canary Islands Territory and Environment Commission (Cotmac) in 2014.
The plan was annulled for the first time after an appeal filed by Costas and then on two occasions the appeals from the companies and the City Council were rejected against the revocation of the Cotmac agreement promoted by the developer and now requesting partial suspension.
The Supreme Court has just ruled and considers that the reports from the autonomous executive and the island institution were "relevant" and had a "binding" nature, and did not refer to a specific issue, despite which they were not complied with, implying the annulment of the entire PGO.
The urban development entity that managed to annul the Cotmac agreement, however, would have then accepted as a subsidiary solution that only a part of the planning be rendered ineffective, which the Supreme Court does not agree to in its latest ruling.
Three Supreme Court rulings
The first time the Supreme Court ruled against the PGO was in 2020 following an appeal by the State Attorney's Office, which the State supported, and at that time the controversy centered on the lack of a report from the Directorate General of Coasts.
The TSJC determined that it was a "rectifiable" error, despite which no step was taken in this regard at the time, and the planning was annulled in its entirety upon reaching the Supreme Court, which has motivated this latest appeal, also dismissed.
The other two times the Supreme Court has ruled have been against an appeal by two entities and the City Council against the Coastal Authority, and another for disagreeing that binding reports should be taken into accountIn this instance, a partial annulment was favored, a door that was left open at the time when the Supreme Court ruled on the Coastal Authority's appeal but which did not materialize.