The Second Section of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has once again annulled the Supplementary General Plan of Yaiza, partially upholding the appeal filed by another individual.
The entity Ramille S.L. intended to eliminate determinations related to its land, which were categorized as protected rural land, but as the main point of the claim, it requested the nullity of the entire document.
“The examination of this claim renders the examination of the three subsidiary claims sterile,” the Chamber points out, recalling that it itself already annulled the Plan last September. Thus, it reapplies the same criterion -related to the location of a roundabout with unfavorable reports from the Highways area- to annul the document again.
“The main claim of the party must be upheld, by derivation from such judgment”, the ruling states, dated November 2.
Regarding the other three subsidiary requests, although it emphasizes that their analysis is not relevant, given that the entire text has already been annulled, it also proceeds to analyze them, and in this case concludes that they should be rejected.
Among other things, in addition to two points that directly affected the classification of its land, the plaintiff requested that the agreement relating to the Montaña Roja Urbanization be declared null.
In this regard, the Chamber recalls that there was a prior judgment to that agreement, favorable to Club Lanzarote. “All this regardless of the fact that the suggested irregularity of the agreement regarding the contravention of public interest is difficult to sustain, when it is signed by three Public Administrations (the Autonomous, the Island and the Municipal)”, adds the TSJC.
Thus, it only partially upholds the appeal, although accepting the main claim, which directly affects the rest. “We declare the nullity of the Supplementary General Plan of Yaiza”, the ruling concludes. The judgment is subject to appeal, if it is proven that “the matter presents objective cassational interest”.
These two judgments are added to another that had already partially annulled the document, in relation to Coasts, by an appeal from the State Attorney's Office.
