The judgments affect almost a thousand tourist places.
The Councilor for Territorial Policy, Environment and Historical Heritage of the Cabildo de Lanzarote, Carlos Espino, has just reported (2:15 p.m.) on the entry into the Corporation of two recent judicial rulings that have been issued by the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands in two judicial proceedings maintained by the Cabildo in defense of the PIOT and its revision, known as the Moratorium.
Nullity of licenses
Both judgments have been favorable to the theses held by the Island Council in defense of the current island model and have declared "the nullity of the licenses" granted by the city councils of Yaiza and Teguise to two tourist establishments located in both municipalities, specifically the Son Bou Hotel (now an annex of the Princesa Yaiza Hotel) in Playa Blanca and a complex of 157 apartments in Costa Teguise.
900 tourist places
In the case of the southern municipality, it is a three-star hotel located in plot E of the Costa Papagayo partial plan, with a total of 167 tourist places. In relation to the municipality of Teguise, this ruling affects a complex of 157 three-star tourist apartments, located in plot 214 of the Costa Teguise partial plan, and which are equivalent to 654 beds.
Espino's statements
Councilor Carlos Espino was pleased to understand that "it is the first time that the courts have gone into depth on the full validity of the precepts established by the Island Plan of Lanzarote".
According to Espino, in the coming days the content of the judgments and the legal analysis of their consequences will be reported to the Biosphere Reserve Council "once the totality of the political groups that make up the Corporation have been informed of the same aspects. It is essential," continued the councilor, "that after the confusion, sometimes interested, about the position of the Cabildo with respect to the judicial proceedings, the citizens have adequate knowledge of the content of the judgments and their implications."
The case of Yaiza
The Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) establishes that, after dismissing the cause of inadmissibility invoked by the Yaiza City Council, it annuls, because they are not in accordance with the law, the Decree of the mayor of Yaiza, dated October 9, 1998, by which the company Kapell SA was granted a building permit for the construction of a 3-star apartment hotel on plot E of the Costa Papagayo Partial Plan and the Resolution of July 25, 2001, which granted a license for the execution of a four-star hotel on plot E of the Costa Papagayo Urbanization in Playa Blanca. The ruling says verbatim "...the reason for inadmissibility must be rejected because the decisive factor is that the reliable notification of the license to the Island Council from the City Council never occurred, as required by article 10.1 of the Law on Urban and Territorial Discipline..."
Some of the reasons for the radical nullity are: infringements of the PIOT, absence of notification to the Cabildo of the license granted; the authorized execution project is new and different and therefore should have been rejected as an execution project of the previous basic one; and also the authorized tourist complex failed to comply with the regulations applicable both to the revision of the PIOT and also the standards applicable to tourist land regulated. It authorizes ten more places than the maximum possible and also does not have the required complementary equipment.
The one in Teguise
In the case of Teguise, the infringements of the law with respect to the license granted by the mayor to the company Lanzagal Promotores y Expl. Hot. Canar. Consulting for the construction of a complex of 157 tourist apartments on plot 214 of the Costa Teguise Special Plan are, among others: the violation of the agreement to suspend the granting of licenses for the construction of new tourist accommodation offer that on January 14, 1999 had been adopted by the Cabildo within the process of revision of the PIOT; lack of intervention of the Cabildo, who was never asked for the mandatory report of compatibility with the PIOT; the license was granted with the basic project without conditioning its start to the presentation and approval of the execution project; the work authorized in the license lacks the mandatory safety and health study; there is no legal report and its granting was not notified to the Cabildo.
