"I think it is the most legal project that has been done in the entire history of Lanzarote." That is what one of the promoters of the La Bufona homes, the architect Federico Echevarría, has stated during his statement as a defendant in the trial that began this Monday in Arrecife. Both he and the other defendant, the builder Antonio Caro, have assured that what was built conforms to the project and the license granted by the City Council and have blamed the buyers for what, according to them, could be executed later (and that has even led Apmun to order the demolition of part of what was built in those homes).
"The owners of the homes have done whatever they wanted within that area," Echevarría has stated, who maintains that one thing is what they delivered and another is what there is now. "Between 2000 and 2008, everything has been built there, but we have not built everything," defended the accused, who has insisted several times that the City Council gave the green light to the executed work, by granting the certificates of occupancy.
One of the partners of the company promoting this urbanization, Francisco Carmona, also worked at that time in the City Council as a draftsman and head of the Cadastre. Carmona was also charged, but died while the case was being investigated. In addition, the former secretary of Arrecife, Felipe Fernández Camero, and the then mayor, María Isabel Déniz, were also charged, although the charges against them were later dropped. During his statement as a witness, one of the Seprona agents who acted in La Bufona after receiving the first complaints in 1999 referred to the lack of collaboration they received from the Consistory. In fact, they asked them for documentation on the Partial Plan but they never sent it to them, so they finally had to request it from the Government of the Canary Islands.
"I am surprised that there are now swimming pools"
"I am surprised that there are now swimming pools, there are other things. I didn't do that," said the other defendant, also a partner of Brisa Inversiones, Antonio Caro, who is also the owner of the construction company that materially executed the work, Costegui. However, in addition to those swimming pools that some buyers do recognize having executed after the delivery of the houses, the reports that have been incorporated into the case also speak of other breaches, among other things because more was built than authorized.
"That is a statement that is made, but that has to be proven," Caro replied when asked about those reports. "No, if that is proven," replied the prosecutor Carlos Fernández. Next, the builder referred again to the technicians of the City Council who gave the green light to the executed works. He even went so far as to say that those technicians would have "incurred in prevarication" if they had not reported that more had been built than authorized.
When asked for details about who those technicians were, he ended up specifying that it was "one", although he did not give his identity. When asked if that technician made any warning of any possible breach, Caro replied that no. "Proof of this is that we soon had the certificate of occupancy," he insisted.
Sealing order that "was not complied with"
It should be remembered that before the houses were handed over to the buyers, Seprona had already prepared reports, which ended with the order to stop the works. Precisely for that alleged breach of the sealing, Caro and Echevarría are also accused of a crime of serious disobedience. In this regard, they have assured that the works were already finished when that sealing was ordered, in July 2000, and that they had even been delivered. However, Caro has introduced a nuance, specifying that "a small part" of the works continued after that date. Specifically four chalets that, according to him, were "in another area" not affected by this lawsuit.
For his part, the prosecutor has recalled that according to one of the reports, prepared by Apmun, in the construction of the houses there was "a total and absolute deviation from the urban parameters", that the works "had nothing to do with what had been authorized", that "they continued despite the order to stop", that "some were even completed in 2004" and that "rural protection land is invaded", as it is a jable crossing area.
However, according to the defendants, who have refused to answer questions from the private accusations, "the City Council had checked it, point by point, room by room and staircase by staircase" after finishing the works and before granting the certificate of occupancy.
The defendants acknowledge the construction of the wall
One of the keys to the trial is the wall that delimits the houses, and that according to the instruction of the case was erected on rural protection land. That wall marks the limit of the land that corresponds to each house, and that now houses swimming pools and other facilities. According to the prosecution, what was done was to expand the constructions occupying protected land.
In this regard, both Antonio Caro and Federico Echevarría have downplayed it. "The issue of a wall, within a land that is developable programmed, is not an attack against anything," said the architect. "But as an architect, do you know that a wall cannot be built on rural protection land?" the prosecutor asked him, to which Echevarría replied again that "no housing has been built on rural land" and that "they are where the Partial Plan and the Modification of the Partial Plan established".
For his part, as a builder, Antonio Caro has acknowledged that they built a wall. According to him, Brisa Inversiones also owned the strip that was higher up and that had been filled with debris. "I was in a huge hurry to remove the debris, so that it would not serve as a landfill or anything," he said, trying to justify that they built a wall to prevent debris from accumulating again. According to him, that is why "the owners saw that the plot was larger than in the deed", which is another of the issues that are being investigated in this case.
