Legal Disputes Emerge Over Urban Development Rights in Cho-Parque la Reina

Recent discussions in the Parliament of the Canary Islands have brought to light ongoing issues surrounding urban development in Cho-Parque la Reina.

Background of the Urban Development Plan

On February 13, 1976, the Partial Plan El Cho 2 received approval, governed by the Land Law of 1956, which did not require the ceding of development rights to local authorities. This context was presented by a legal technician from Gestur during a parliamentary session, where Agoney Piñero, the CEO of the public company, addressed the reasons behind the halt in planning licenses in the area for nearly ten years. Piñero attributed the delay to the lack of urbanization works delivered by Gestur.

In 1980, Gestur acquired a plot from the Partial Plan El Cho 2, originally owned by Cañada Blanca SA, with plans to develop tertiary urbanization and sell the plots for future construction. By 1985, Gestur had requested the acceptance of the urbanization works from the Arona Council. Although this request was never formally acknowledged, Gestur assumed the urbanization was accepted due to the principle of administrative silence, leading to their failure to deliver the required 10% of municipal development rights now demanded by Arona.

Gestur’s Justification

During the recent parliamentary committee meeting, Gestur’s representatives argued that the current planning block in Cho-Parque la Reina, referred to as Phase I Polygon 2A, was part of a larger development initiated by Cañada Blanca SA in 1976. They contended that the Land Law of 1956, applicable at the time, did not necessitate the ceding of 10% of development rights. Consequently, they deemed it unreasonable for Gestur to be held accountable for this requirement in later years.

Gestur also indicated that this was the first instance they had been informed, since their initial request for urbanization in 1975, that the Arona Council considered the project incomplete due to the missing 10% of development rights. They maintained that the urbanization was effectively delivered based on the principle of administrative silence, referencing Royal Decree-Law 16/1981, which stipulates that if no resolution is communicated within three months of initial approval, the definitive approval is assumed to be granted.

Legal Challenges and Supreme Court Rulings

However, crucial details were omitted during the presentation. Notably, Gestur had previously been mandated by a final ruling from the Supreme Court to pay the 10% development rights for another parcel within the Partial Plan El Cho 2. Additionally, a report from the Arona Council in 1986 explicitly denied the receipt of the urbanization works and rejected the notion of administrative silence.

In 1991, the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands dismissed Gestur’s appeal against the Arona Council regarding the ceding of 10% of development rights for Polygon 5A of the Partial Plan El Cho 2. The court’s decision was based on the timing of the Land Reform Law of 1975, which was enacted shortly after the initial approval of the Partial Plan. The court concluded that the definitive approval occurred under the new law, which required compliance with its provisions.

Following this ruling, Gestur appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the previous decision in 1995. The Supreme Court rejected Gestur’s argument that the Land Law of 1956 exempted them from ceding the 10% of development rights. Consequently, Gestur was compelled to negotiate the transfer of a parcel measuring 6,900 square meters, representing 10% of Polygon 5A, valued at €1.3 million, which was later auctioned by Arona.

Understanding Administrative Silence

Gestur’s recent claims regarding administrative silence as a defense against the 10% development payment were met with skepticism, given the legal precedents established in previous rulings. The ongoing legal battles highlight the complexities and challenges of urban development regulations in the Canary Islands.

Key points

• The Partial Plan El Cho 2 was approved on February 13, 1976, under the Land Law of 1956.
• Gestur acquired a plot from Cañada Blanca SA in 1980 for urban development.
• Gestur failed to deliver the required 10% of municipal development rights demanded by Arona.
• The Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that Gestur must cede 10% of development rights.
• Gestur’s claims of administrative silence were previously challenged by the Arona Council.
• The legal disputes highlight ongoing tensions in urban planning regulations.