The Government of the Canary Islands, all of the political forces with representation in Parliament have agreed this week, on what you consider to be the only option or solution to protect Alegranza and once again the Government's acquisition is proposed through expropriation. I imagine that this announcement is not part of an intuition that the Government of the Canary Islands has, but probably of concrete data.
The environmental value of the islets is beyond any doubt. Making the protection of these values compatible with private use, which could give it an economic utility, is complicated. On the other hand, all these islets, if the Coasts Law is applied, the logical thing is that they become coastal public domain and, consequently, it is the State that corresponds to the acquisition of the islets. In fact, in the last legislature there was already an attempt, by the State, to acquire them. I think that in these economic times it is complicated, but it has to be an objective, for its preservation. And as they are islets, they must be acquired in application of the Coasts Law.
Has the Government of the Canary Islands had the possibility of talking about the conservation and protection of these islets with representatives of the Government? Is there the same impression among ministerial officials that the Coasts Law, applied in full, leads to expropriation?
That is an issue that we have to continue dealing with. It was discussed in the last legislature and Coasts first thing he did is expropriate it, but the file was not concluded. Indeed, this will have to be negotiated. In this legislature, there has been no progress on this issue, because the islets have their Rector Plan for Use and Management but, certainly, it is a plan that necessarily due to the conservation due is very restrictive for the owners. This was also in the courts, which have annulled two articles, in the case of Alegranza, of the Rector Plan for Uses and Management that, basically, are the two main articles, because they are the ones that delimit the restricted areas and also the one that says what can or cannot be done, so the utility for the owners is quite scarce. So, once that sentence exists, which we understand has an error of appreciation, in that they are based on the fact that the public part is not of restricted use and only the private part is, which is not true, since there is a large public extension that also has a very restricted use. An appeal has been made, as we understand that the sentence has some error. However, the Government is always open to establishing a line of negotiation with the property in order to see what their claims are and if they can be reconciled with conservation.
In another issue that, without a doubt, has brought headaches to municipal, island and even the Government of the Canary Islands authorities, unanimity has also been achieved this week in that the Government of the Canary Islands is going to grant maximum speed to the license of the expansion project of Club La Santa, which had been proposing this expansion for some time, which until now had been impossible to grant the appropriate permits. Why can it be done now? How can the process be accelerated? What can the Government of the Canary Islands do for La Santa?
Club La Santa submitted an application for authorization as an exceptional project as provided for in the 2003 Law for the tourist moratorium, but that presentation was quite late when it was substantiated, because first they spent quite some time with this issue and, in addition, they were asked to correct the project and they took a long time to present it again. In that transit, the three years allowed by the law passed, so they were left without legal coverage for that exceptional authorization, because there was a tourist moratorium that prevented the expansion of tourist establishments. However, the Law of Urgent Measures gives a solution to this problem, as long as it is intended to rehabilitate the complex, because it is granted a greater number of places, which is what the promoters requested. In that sense, the law allows it and a series of procedures must be carried out, which were being initiated in the Cabildo, which have been sent to the Ministry of Tourism of the Government of the Canary Islands, so that it is the one that grants that report. And they are in that transit. I have not been able to speak with the Minister of Tourism, but I am sure that she has this as a priority, as the Cabildo has and we all have.
Finally, it is inevitable to ask you about your appearance to answer the question of Deputy Manuel Fajardo Palarea, in which the Minister pointed out that the Government is going to encourage the peaceful transition to legality of those hotel establishments whose licenses have been annulled by judicial decision. What does a peaceful transition to legality consist of?
It consists of the promoters, with the current legal framework, being able to redo their files and apply for a new license, to obtain it within the law. Obviously, the license has to be granted in the last instance by the City Council and the mandatory reports for that license by the Cabildo. The Government has always been in favor of the possibility of legalizing the hotels. It considers that the last of the solutions would be that the hotels are not legalized and, consequently, have to be demolished. This would be tremendously negative for the general interest, for the island's economy, for employment, the tourist image. They are also magnifying this problem, remembering every day that the hotels are illegal and, in addition, with a tremendous commitment. We must work so that, within the law and equality, those who have obtained a sentence annulling a license they already had, can correct the file to correct those things that were detected in that sentence and re-apply for the license. At this time there is a legal framework that favors being able to legalize. In the first place, the Law of Urgent Measures allows them to use the places they had authorized, at this time that there is still a tourist moratorium. Secondly, the limitations they had due to the specific moratorium that the Island Plan had have disappeared, having been annulled by the Supreme Court. And the 1991 plan remains in force, which at this time has no practical application in this matter. Consequently, it does not seem that the island planning is an insurmountable obstacle for these promoters not to be able to redo the file, as long as they comply with the urban planning regulations that are in force.
There are hotels, as you well know, whose sentence annuls them because they say that they have built beyond what they had initially presented in the project, because they have one or two more floors. Let's imagine that it has one more floor. How is that corrected? And how does that walk peacefully towards legality? By demolishing the floor?
Maybe yes, if it is not legalizable. The fact that it has not been presented in the initial project does not mean that it cannot be presented now, as long as the planning allows it. Now, this is not in any of the sentences but, if the planning does not allow it, they would have to demolish that floor. That is obvious.
Is there a procedure to start this legalization process? It has to start because the promoters go to the affected municipal corporation, that is, the City Council of Yaiza or the City Council of Teguise. So far there has been no request. Are you aware that there have been requests of these characteristics addressed to your ministry or to the Government of the Canary Islands?
No. It makes no sense to my ministry because we do not give the licenses. Therefore, there is no file here that can be processed. The promoters know very well where to present the projects. If they have not done so, they will be preparing them or I do not know what they will want to do, but it is evident that it is up to them to present the new projects and start the files. In relation to what they fail to comply with, public spaces and that, that would have no remedy. Now, the majority of the sentences is because they lack a mandatory report from the Island Council, which at that time they could not obtain, precisely because of the provisions of the island planning.