The courts have admitted the contentious-administrative appeal, presented by Gent de Dénia, against the General Structural Plan of the regional capital. This was announced this morning by the independent party itself.
This document was approved last May after a "cumbersome procedure", as GD spokesman Mario Vidal described it, and with "an arrogant, sectarian and totally unlawful attitude on the part of the government team". In this regard, he recalled that this municipal group has already "been showing its opposition to such an accumulation of nonsense that could ruin the economy of our city, without our opinion ever having been taken into account, even if it was positive".
Faced with this situation and an approval "at least strange on the part of the previous Conselleria, exempting itself from any responsibility", he pointed out, Gent de Dénia considered it appropriate to file an administrative appeal against the approval of the PGE, which has been admitted for processing.
Motives
The points on which GD bases its dispute are:
- "Cancellation of urban development agreements on the basis of Patricova, which considers that they are affected by flooding in the long term. It would have been better to have carried out or planned corrective measures and avoid large liabilities.
- Other agreements have been annulled on the grounds that they had not been developed, when the Town Hall benefited from roads built on the basis of the agreement without any consideration and annulling any urban planning rights, this is a clear patrimonial responsibility that will be paid for by the citizen in the future.
- In the different exhibitions and approvals, several substantial modifications of land classification have been made, without a complete public exhibition, it is very difficult to know how a plan is when only the modifications that have been presented cannot be compared with the rest of the plan.
- In the procedure, only the allegations that specifically affect the relevant exposure have been admitted, and the remaining allegations have been directly rejected.
- They have directly increased the surface area for building on non-urban land from 10,000 m2 to 25,000 m2, alleging the scarcity and quality of water, the lack of sewerage and the lack of electrical infrastructures, without looking at the fact that they leave all the rustic land in a state of Out of Supervening Ordination.
- Protected Rural Land has been indicated, but neither the protection nor the infrastructures are indicated, and this gives legal uncertainty to the owners.
- There are discrepancies between the files, plans and urban development regulations in some areas, which creates uncertainty, and at the same time they reply that this will be resolved in the detailed development plan, neither occupation nor buildability is defined in some areas.
- For us the most important issue is that with the reduction of buildable area in the Urban Land, they are leaving everything built to date out of planning, a supervening out of planning, which does involve property claims for the negative increase in value that is generated in existing homes. With the decrease in buildability they do not reduce the number of dwellings, what they do is to make shacks in front of large buildings, the Town Hall does not obtain any benefit, not even urbanistic.
- In addition to all of this, we must add the processing of the plan, which has been obscure, cumbersome and lacking in transparency, without working directly with the agents involved, defining an à la carte plan that will be difficult to work with. We have gone so far as to sign the total assumption by the Town Hall of any liability for the errors of this plan".
For these reasons, and "in order to avoid later evils such as the payment of patrimonial responsibilities and negative urban planning sentences", Vidal assures that GD has seen itself as politically and morally obliged to take legal action in the case.
