The ruling issued by the Second Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) is explicit in stating that the absence of the compatibility report with the PIOT is not a mere formal error that can be corrected, but constitutes an attack on the legal control established by the Island Council in matters of containing tourism growth, because, in the opinion of the TSJC, "the report is precisely the guarantee that the license complies with the island planning hierarchically superior to the lower urban planning, and the guarantee, ultimately, of respect for urban legality, and, ultimately, a guarantee that the exercise by the City Council of its powers, with regard to the granting of licenses, is adequate, according to the Cabildo, to urban legality."
The TSJC reiterates the arguments of previous rulings, and points out that the obligation of the Yaiza city council to request the Cabildo for a compatibility report with the PIOT, "is a procedure linked to the need to guarantee the island interests linked to compliance with the PIOT and prevent urban actions incompatible with the planning determinations established by the island planning, as we said, hierarchically superior to the municipal planning instruments, from being developed."
As the final part of the ruling cites, "what has been said is more than enough to uphold the appeal and annul the appealed licenses that were granted ignoring any request to the Cabildo for a compatibility report, that is, as if the Island Plan of Lanzarote did not exist, which established determinations on the maximum building area and urban licenses for tourist accommodation places in the partial plans of the tourist centers."
The FCM is studying requesting the execution of the ruling
With this ruling, there are now fourteen appeals upheld in favor of the FCM, while the tourist places annulled by virtue of these rulings exceed 6,000. Likewise, the FCM informs public opinion that it has consulted its legal team to assess the ways of executing the ruling that are opened after the pronouncement of the TSJC, as well as on the opportunity to communicate the illegal situation of this hotel to the Canary Islands Agency for the Protection of the Urban and Natural Environment.
Measures that are novel, since until now, the FCM had never requested the execution of the rulings that annul tourist places.
On the other hand, the FCM highlights that the TSJC again corrects the criteria established by the Contentious-Administrative Court of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, which at the end of 2006 denied the FCM's appearance in this case by declaring the appeal presented by this institution out of time. In addition, the Foundation highlights that the TSJC has entered into the merits of the matter, declaring the nullity of both the first license granted by the Yaiza consistory to the Princesa Yaiza hotel on June 1, 1998, and the subsequent license granted to the execution project, on January 10, 2001.
It should be remembered that the legal defense of the Yaiza city council tried to prevent the FCM from appearing in the lawsuit with arguments that have now been forcefully rejected by the TSJC, which cites in the ruling: "Of course, what this Chamber cannot do is presuppose and take for granted that officials of the Island Council, who are or were members of the César Manrique Foundation, took advantage of this dual condition to inform the latter of the existence of the licenses. [?] with regard to the exercise of the public action, which is what the Chamber examines, it is in no way possible to induce or deduce this extra-procedural knowledge of the existence of the challenged building permits."
Regarding the legitimacy of the FCM and compliance with the legal deadlines to file the appeal, the TSJC considers that "there is no doubt about the legitimacy of the plaintiff entity or about the timely exercise of the action, since it does not appear that the works had been completed prior to the exercise of the action."
