The Fifth Section of the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Supreme Court has definitively overturned the General Plan of Yaiza, by rejecting the appeals filed by the Yaiza City Council, the company Club Lanzarote SA, and the company Yudaya SL in their attempt to keep it in force.
The southern council and the two companies filed appeals in cassation against the ruling of the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands of 2022, which completely annulled the General Supplementary Zoning Plan of Yaiza, for ignoring the indications of two "binding" road reports issued by the Government of the Canary Islands and the Cabildo of Lanzarote.
This plan, which had been approved in 2014, was first partially annulled by the Justice in relation to Coasts and finally completely annulled for not "complying" with the road reports that indicated where roundabouts should be planned and located and that warned that two roundabouts proposed in Playa Blanca did not comply with "a sufficient safety distance between vehicles entering and exiting the roundabout."
In the judicial ruling of the TSJC, now recalled by the Supreme Court, it was stated that the reports of both institutions were "mandatory" and "binding", and that despite them, the Zoning Plan "did not alter" the location of the roundabouts or other required elements that affected the LZ-2, a road owned by the island, and other municipal roads.
Both the Yaiza City Council and the aforementioned companies went to the High Court with the intention that the Supreme Court reject the annulment of the General Plan and endorse its approval.
An attempt to annul it only partially
In their case, the council argued that it "should never have been annulled", since the reports "were assumed by the planning, faithfully integrating their considerations". Meanwhile, Club Lanzarote SA tried to get the Chamber to "individualize" the annulment of the Plan, leaving without effect only the roundabouts that did not comply with the guidelines of the Cabildo and the Government of the Canary Islands, and seeking to "save the rest of the determinations".
The Government of the Canary Islands, for its part, did not oppose the appeals in cassation and argued that the detected defect was not reported by the regional Executive, but by the Cabildo of Lanzarote in its report and that this "was not binding". In addition, it indicated that this breach "is limited to a perfectly delimited area" of Playa Blanca and that it does not affect "the rest of the municipality". In this sense, it insisted that it is "perfectly individualizable" and demanded that the High Court "choose the least onerous measure for the general interests" and that it take into account "the complexity" involved in approving a general plan.
The Government of the Canary Islands stated that the decision to annul the plan "did not properly assess what it means to process a plan like this in order to have to start the procedure again for just two roundabouts".
However, the Supreme Court states in a ruling of June 3 that the conditions included in the reports "have not been assumed in the General Zoning Plan, which even omits any mention of the setback" required by the Cabildo in its resolution. In addition, the High Court recalls that the legislation already included the "mandatory and binding nature" of both reports and "the consequences of their non-compliance".
Finally, the Court rejects "individualizing" the annulment of the plan only to the aforementioned roundabouts. "The effects on the island road of regional interest LZ-2 [...] affect the generality and not specific determinations that can be individualized in isolation, since the configuration of new roundabouts concerns and affects the very structure of the municipality."
To conclude, the Chamber does not impose costs on any of the parties, as it does not appreciate "recklessness or bad faith".
