The César Manrique Foundation's appeal against a hotel dismissed for having filed it late

LAVOZDELANZAROTE.COM The Contentious-Administrative Court number 2 of Las Palmas has not admitted for processing the appeal filed by the César Manrique Foundation against a license granted by the ...

January 20 2006 (13:16 WET)
Dismissed the appeal of the César Manrique Foundation against a hotel for having presented it late
Dismissed the appeal of the César Manrique Foundation against a hotel for having presented it late

LAVOZDELANZAROTE.COM

The Contentious-Administrative Court number 2 of Las Palmas has not admitted for processing the appeal filed by the César Manrique Foundation against a license granted by the Yaiza City Council for the construction of a hotel in the Las Coloradas urbanization, in Playa Blanca, in the south of Lanzarote.

This Thursday, the judgment of the magistrate judge, Ana María Catalá Polo, was notified, declaring inadmissible the appeal presented on May 12, 2004 by the FCM in which the annulment of the decrees signed by the mayor of Yaiza, José Francisco Reyes, authorizing the construction of a 5-star luxury hotel with about 500 places in plots 2 and 3 of the Las Coloradas urbanization was requested. The hotel is scheduled to open in the first quarter of 2006, although according to what this editorial staff has learned, it does not have the tourist opening permits from the Cabildo of Lanzarote.

In the judgment, which does not address the substance of the matter or analyze the legality of the hotel's license because it considers that the appeal was filed late, it is stated in its legal grounds "applying the doctrine to the present case, and having started the works in September 2002, it is clear that the plaintiff (César Manrique Foundation), as has been demonstrated and is stated in the attached documents, has knowledge at all times of the works being carried out in this area, because it has appeared in all administrative and judicial actions affecting said coastal area. And it is that, in addition, two of its highest representatives work in the Island Council of Lanzarote, and this Organization had knowledge of these licenses in July 2003".

This new judgment indicates that the "Cabildo had knowledge of these licenses in July 2003", so it is evident - adds the judicial ruling - "the untimeliness alleged by the Administration, since in accordance with article 128.1 of the LJCA the deadlines are non-extendable".

Assessment of Yaiza

The mayor of Yaiza, José Francisco Reyes, will announce this judgment in the coming days once it is communicated to the political groups of the Municipal Corporation of Yaiza and presented in the next plenary session for their knowledge.

For his part, the deputy mayor and councilor for Urban Planning of the Yaiza City Council, José Antonio Rodríguez, said this Friday that "this new judicial ruling demonstrates that the Cabildo, contrary to what the PSOE officials say, did have knowledge of the licenses".

And now, the courts confirm through the legal grounds that "two of its highest representatives (of the FCM) work in the Island Council of Lanzarote" and that, as is well known on the Island, specifies the Councilor for Urban Planning of Yaiza, are the technical managers of the PIOT Office.

The Cabildo clarifies that it has nothing to do with its lawsuits

However, according to what this editorial staff was able to confirm, the judgment issued in this case (filed by the Foundation and not by the Cabildo) has no relation to the Cabildo of Lanzarote or with the appeal that said corporation also has filed since 2003 against the licenses granted to that hotel, a lawsuit that is being processed and in which the Cabildo trusts that it will be resolved by annulling said licenses.

Therefore, from the Department of Territorial Policy of the Cabildo it is assured that the resolution known yesterday has nothing to do with the lawsuits filed by the Cabildo against the illegal permits granted by the mayor of Yaiza (all of which have been favorable to the Cabildo, with 3 judgments having been issued so far), and that, in addition, the judgment issued in the Foundation's appeal only says that said entity (and not the Cabildo) presented its appeal brief late, warning the Court itself that the appeal that the Cabildo filed a year before the Foundation is already being processed on the same matter.

Most read