They opposed its approval and warned that they were going to take it to the Prosecutor's Office, and so they have. This Tuesday, the councilors of the Arrecife City Council for Citizen Alternative, Andrés Barreto and Ginés Quintana, have denounced before the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office of Las Palmas the basic adaptation of the General Plan of Arrecife that was approved last March 19 in plenary session. According to the alternative councilors, its approval could incur a "supposed prevarication" for which they request the Prosecutor's Office to "initiate the investigation in case there may be a violation of the law for the benefit of third parties".
In their complaint they maintain that the approval and presentation of the Adaptation "has not been carried out in accordance with the provisions of current legislation", since a "incomplete document different from the one approved by the COTMAT with quite significant substantial modifications" has been published.
In the facts described chronologically, they denounce that in 2004 the adaptation was published in the Official Gazette of the Canary Islands without having included the "suggestions-obligations" that the COTMAT dictated in November 2003 and with "substantial modifications to the one that had been approved by the COTMAC, without previously making the legal requirement". Upon learning of this "manifest illegality", a Commission created by the Board of Spokespersons to study this situation agreed in 2005 to request in plenary that the document be rendered ineffective. However, the Government group rejected the request. Finally, the changes were processed as "errors, modifications and omissions", according to Andrés Barreto and Ginés Quintana, at the express request of the mayor of Arrecife, Mª Isabel Déniz to the COTMAC on November 7, 2006.
The councilors of AC consider that there are "legal defects" in the presentation of the reports referring to the Adaptation that "infringe the regulations" and "create confusion". They argue, therefore, that "the chain of errors" in the processing of the file and in the publication of the document causes defenselessness to those affected by the planning, to the Territorial Policy Council itself and to the COTMAT.
The document that has been delivered to the Prosecutor's Office maintains that the alleged "illegality of the procedure" influences not only that "rights may have been generated to third parties", but also in the approval of important plans such as the PEPA based on an Adaptation that is allegedly illegal. To support their complaint, they have presented up to 18 documents referring to the adaptation.