This April, the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has stopped Lopesan's interest so that Cofete, in Jandía, can be developed to serve tourism.
The ruling calls for organizing this space for territorial purposes as it was in 1994, a year after the creation of the Canarian Coalition, using cartography and aerial photos from three decades ago based on the "buildings that really existed then." , and there will be no free way to regularize illegal constructions carried out without authorization from the protection of space", says Diario de Fuerteventura. The Pájara planning of 1989 classifies the land as "rustic natural protection"
Furthermore, the ruling adds, “the place where the works are located - a scattering of shanties or substandard housing - has not been recognized in any planning instrument today as a rural settlement, not even meeting the characteristics to be recognized as such. , this extreme being regulated and not discretionary.” “What's more,” points out the TSJC, “nor a provisional approval of a new planning instrument not yet definitively approved that may contain any reference in this regard, does not authorize the conclusion that there is a rural settlement.” And, regarding the “applicability” of the aforementioned provision that mentions Cofete in the Urgent Measures Law of 2009, the ruling in the Lopesan case “discards” it.
The Government of the Canary Islands has announced that there will be a specific legal standard to "give greater legal security to the owners until the Master Plan for Use and Management is approved." The titular councilor for territorial planning is Manuel Miranda, from CC in Fuerteventura. The ruling indicates, according to Diario de Fuerteventura, the use by Lopesan of a "combustible network of allegations" to give the green light to the classification and categorization of Cofete as a "rural settlement" in a "notorious fraud of law" that, as its ultimate goal, would "allow" the company to "give the extensive property it owns, with the characteristics of a large estate," a "renewed urban planning spirit." The quotation marks are taken from Diario de Fuerteventura.
"The ruling of the TSJC confirms a previous resolution of the Administrative Litigation Court number five of Las Palmas" since "in the procedure the Lopesan company and the Agency for the Protection of the Urban and Natural Environment (Apmun) faced each other." The aforementioned Court In the first instance, the contentious-administrative appeal filed by Lopesan was dismissed in its entirety, who went to court as the owner of a land in Cofete on which the demolition of works had been agreed.
Diario de Fuerteventura points out: "Lopesan tried to take advantage of the opportunity that was open to it in the courts to have a category judicially recognized for the land that it does not have. The court recognizes the “paradoxical action” of the company, which “combats” the actions of the autonomous community despite the fact that “it goes for its property”". Previously, the company attempted to “indirectly” challenge the Fuerteventura Island Planning Plan (PIOF) and the General Planning Plan (PGO) of Pájara. The houses of Cofete are located on rustic land of natural protection, according to current planning. The Fuerteventura Natural Resources Management Plan zones the town within the specially protected rustic land, also declaring it an area of ecological sensitivity. It is within the Jandía Natural Park, whose Master Plan for Use and Management (PRUG) was judicially annulled in November 2013. The new PRUG is one of the documents commissioned by the Majorero Council from the public company Gesplan. An additional provision of the Law on Urgent Measures on territorial planning of 2009 that modified, in turn, the regulations on natural spaces in the Canary Islands to, in Jandía, consider them “compatible” with the Natural Park, with an “exceptional” nature. , the town of Puerto de la Cruz and “the pre-existing rural settlement of Cofete”.
However, the lawyer from the legal services of the Government of the Canary Islands highlighted in her allegations in the judicial procedure that “there is no incompatibility” between what the PIOF and the PGO of Pájara establish with the aforementioned additional provision. “There is not,” the ruling states, because the “allusion” to the “pre-existing rural settlement of Cofete” cannot be applied “to the works executed subsequently, as is the case.” The Superior Court of Justice highlights, regarding the classification of the real land of Cofete, that both the island and municipal planning “contain determinations that prevent the legalization of the works” carried out without protection, which in this case were executed in 2012.
