PHOTOS: Sergio Betancort
What was built in the Stratvs complex "does not correspond" to what had been authorized. That is what two other technicians from the Yaiza Town Council have confirmed, who this Monday testified as experts in the trial, and they have also returned to recount how the businessman Juan Francisco Rosa tried to prevent them from carrying out an inspection of the facilities.
"I think the owner called halfway through the visit and we couldn't complete it," explained the technical engineer from Yaiza, Vicente Bencomo. And the architect Ana Isabel Díaz confirmed the same: "We were told that we were not authorized to continue."
Both have explained that they carried out that inspection in 2013 by order of the then mayor, Gladys Acuña, who had already been charged in this case for granting the opening license for Stratvs, for which she was already convicted with a final judgment in the first piece that went to trial. When granting that license in 2008, an inspection should have been carried out to verify if what was built conformed to what was authorized, but that inspection was never done. It was five years later, when declaring as an investigated party in this case and being warned by the magistrate of the illegality of the complex, when she ordered that inspection.
However, on the first visit, the technicians left without seeing all the facilities. This was already revealed in the first Stratvs trial by the then head of the Technical Office, Antonio Lorenzo, who also participated in that inspection and who was the one who spoke with Juan Francisco Rosa. According to Lorenzo, "after an hour a gentleman appeared" with a telephone and told him that Rosa wanted to speak with him. "And why did you decide to leave?", the prosecutor then asked him. "Because I understood that I could not enter if I did not have permission from the property," replied Lorenzo, who later specified that he "does not know" if to carry out an inspection it is necessary to have "authorization" from the property.
Constructions that "did not appear in any project"
Finally, after carrying out a second inspection, the Town Council only managed to seal off the restaurant, which did not even appear in the original project (what was authorized was only the construction of a small warehouse of 900 meters, as well as the rehabilitation of a pre-existing house).
However, the rest of the complex - which ended up being closed by judicial order - also had nothing to do with what had been authorized, as two technicians from Yaiza have confirmed again this Monday. In their statement, the experts have described all the facilities that were part of Stratvs and that had no coverage in any type of license, such as the restaurant, a kitchen on two floors, toilets, a multipurpose room, warehouses, a paved terrace, a store and a bar with a tasting point. All these constructions "did not appear in any project" nor did they have a license.
As for the winery, it had the building permit based on a basic project, but the execution project was not presented to the Town Council either, nor was the staking act done, nor was the final certificate of work delivered. "There is a certificate saying that they have finished, but not a valid document to process the opening," the expert has specified, who has also recalled that this document - which attests that what has been built conforms to what has been authorized - must be endorsed by two technicians, an architect and a surveyor, and in this case it only bore the signature of one of the accused, the architect Miguel Ángel Amas Matallana. In addition, among the many documents that were not on file, she also referred to the absence of a habitability report on the supposed house that they were going to rehabilitate, and where a store was actually installed.
"Our report was not so thorough, it had to be a quick report"
In addition, the experts have ratified that the winery also greatly exceeded what was authorized, which was only 900 meters. "The ground floor has 1,291 meters," said the architect Ana Isabel Díaz, who added that there is also "another floor" in the winery. However, the two technicians have indicated that they did not measure the height. "It may have been an oversight on our part," Bencomo pointed out.
"Our report was not so thorough, it had to be a quick report," he also said when asked about other aspects, such as the supposed rehabilitation of the house. In this regard, the two technicians have indicated that after their inspection they concluded that "there are doubts" about whether it is located in the same place and that "it cannot be said that the house was rehabilitated", as Rosa's defense maintains. For their part, other expert reports carried out later by judicial order have confirmed that the house was demolished and that a new, larger one was built, installing the store and the tasting area there.
The other central axis of the interrogation of these two experts has revolved around the slopes, to determine if Stratvs is really an underground construction, which is what the license authorized. On this point, both have pointed out that there are facilities above ground, such as the store area and some toilets, and have agreed that the rest is below. "The slope is a very relative term," Ana Isabel Díaz maintained, while Bencomo ended up pointing out that in his report "the slope was not studied" and that they only studied "the surface". "The mayor did not ask us for that level of detail," he alleged again.
"Embedded in the mountain"
However, he insisted that he "believes" that the winery area is "below ground level", despite the fact that the entrance gate is not, and you do not have to go down stairs to access the interior of the winery, as the prosecutor has underlined. "I don't understand why you say it's below ground level," she pointed out. "It's buried, it's covered," he replied. "Is it embedded in the mountain?", the prosecutor asked again. "Yes", the witness replied, confirming that the work had to require a significant movement of earth, despite the fact that it is expressly prohibited in the area.
"The winery is buried. You can see the access door, but it is inside the mountain", the architect said for her part, who insisted on maintaining that the winery is "buried". "Buried in picón?", the lawyer of the popular accusation asked her, exercised by Urban Transparency, who maintains that what was done was to alter the landscape and the ravine where Stratvs was installed.
Regarding the building permit granted in its day to Stratvs, under the Mayoralty of José Francisco Reyes, the technicians have assured that the General Plan of Yaiza did allow the construction of a winery, although they later specified that the document was not adapted to the Island Plan - which expressly prohibited them - so it was mandatory to request a compatibility report from the Cabildo. However, even in the case of the General Plan of Yaiza, what it allowed was small wineries or presses, but not wine industries. In this regard, the architect has alleged that she does not know how to differentiate between a press and a wine industry, and that for her Stratvs was "a winery".
As for the authorization granted by the Government of the Canary Islands, for which there are three people accused, the expert has recalled that in that same resolution it was pointed out that there was a report from the Cabildo that warned that the project was "incompatible with the Island Plan". "I don't know what the technician would have thought in his day", she pointed out in reference to her colleague accused in the case, the surveyor Pablo Carrasco. "He would think about which report to pay attention to and whether the resolution of the Government of the Canary Islands or the note from the Cabildo is more important", she added.
Two jurists from the Cabildo confirm infractions against the Heritage
During Monday's session, in which the Stratvs trial has been resumed with security measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19 - such as the installation of screens in the area of the judges, the Prosecutor's Office and the lawyers; separation distances between the public; and disinfection of the table where the statement is given as soon as each expert left - two jurists from the Cabildo have also testified, who intervened in a sanctioning file against Stratvs after the construction of the winery.
The first was Pilar Gómez, who as a jurist in the area of Historical Heritage and then secretary of the Island Commission, issued a report proposing the opening of that file. In her statement, the expert recalled that the property "destroyed elements" that were affected by the file that had then been opened to declare La Geria an Asset of Cultural Interest, specifically several socos; and that it had breached the authorization that had been granted to it for the planting of three palm trees.
In addition, although the defense alleges that La Geria was not declared a BIC, the jurist has stressed that at the time the infraction was committed, the file was in force, and granted the area "the same protection regime as if it had already been declared a BIC".
The same has also stated the lawyer Pedro Fraile, who was appointed instructor of that file and concluded that up to three infractions had been committed. "The BIC had expired, but when the infraction was committed it was in force", he pointed out, explaining to questions from one of the magistrates of the Chamber that if that file was not completed it was not because the area had "lost interest", but due to "lack of diligence of the administration" to process it within the foreseen deadlines.
In addition, Fraile has also insisted that Rosa breached the authorization that had been granted to him, that socos were destroyed and that "earth movements" had also been carried out without authorization with the construction of a cave, a post and a mill to make a large Nativity scene on this protected land. "For an earth movement you would need authorization from the Environment and the Town Council", he stressed.
The trial will end in July in Gran Canaria
The last expert to appear this Monday was another technician from Yaiza, Andrés Curbelo, who in this case had been summoned at the request of the defense of one of the accused, the municipal surveyor Pablo Carrasco. However, Carrasco's lawyer did not attend the hearing this Monday and finally he was not asked any questions. "He has not left me any indications to ask questions", said the lawyer of another of the accused, who had intervened on behalf of his colleague in another interrogation.
Thus, only the lawyer of the former manager of the Island Water Council, José Juan Hernández Duchemín, has asked him the same question that he asks all the experts and witnesses, which is whether there was a sewage network in La Geria; while the lawyer of the prosecution has explained that the intervention of this expert was related to a file of territorial qualification on the "extension" of the winery, and has taken the opportunity to ask him if he sent it to the Office of the Island Plan because it was the one that had the powers, to which he has replied that yes.
The hearing will continue this Tuesday with the last experts who are going to testify in Lanzarote, and then it will resume on July 21 in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, where the statements of the experts will end and the conclusions of the accusations and the defenses will be presented. According to the planned calendar, the trial will be ready for sentencing on July 28.
