The president of Council of TenerifePedro Martín, yesterday defended the actions of the Island Corporation and its agility throughout the process relating to the works of the Cuna del Alma project in Puertito de Adeje. He warned that completely paralyzing the work, by the Cabildo, “would be prevarication, if I do not have the appropriate reports”, and pointed out that it is the General Directorate of Heritage of the Government of the Canary Islands that now has to pronounce, after opening file sanctioning the company for the destruction of an archaeological site with a proposal for a sanction of up to 600,000 euros, on whether it maintains the precautionary stoppage of the works in the area of the site.
This is how the island president stated during an appearance in plenary yesterday, at the request of Sí Podemos Canarias, and which, before starting, was interrupted by three of the activists against the work in Puertito de Adeje, who asked to intervene. “We have no problem listening to them at the end of the Plenary, but now it is not the procedure,” replied Pedro Martín. After a push and pull, they managed to agree that after the appearance there would be a recess for the activists to present their position to the plenary groups, as it was, also meeting privately with Pedro Martín.
The insular president began by explaining the administrative procedures and reports prepared by the Cabildo, and defended that “from the moment we became aware of a complaint that there could be an attack on property, we acted immediately, and it was paralyzed in a precautionary manner where indicated the technicians and reports, and we continue to maintain the stoppage in that area. Likewise, he pointed out that it should be the General Directorate of Government Heritage that responds on whether the paralysis is maintained in that area or not, or if it extends it to the entire area, which it has not done, and reminded Sí Podemos Canarias that the general director is from her party.
In this line, the socialist councilor Javier Rodríguez insisted that “administratively there is nothing that allows the stoppage of the works, and in case of doing so, it would be prevaricating.”
Meanwhile, the spokeswoman for Sí Podemos Canarias, María José Belda, denounced that “the heritage value of the area has been hidden in the drafting phase of the planning document and urbanization project in order to circumvent the control of the Cabildo and the Government. ”, among other irregularities. Therefore, he considered that “from this Cabildo a report must be requested from its legal advice about the criminal liability that the authors may incur during the course of the works, so that, where appropriate, they are prosecuted. judicially”. He also requested that “the City Council of Adeje be urged to carry out the ex officio review of the agreement for the specific modification of the PGO in Puertito de Adeje”, in view of the irregularities, “agreeing to suspend the works as a precautionary measure ”.
These requests were collected in a motion presented by Sí Podemos Canarias and that they ended up deciding to withdraw during their debate.
Pedro Martín responded that “we support requesting any report from legal advice on any type of responsibility, if you state that there may be criminal responsibilities, in the powers that correspond to the Cabildo, do not doubt that we will do it”; although he indicated that, regarding the suspension of the works as a precautionary measure, “in this matter I would need a legal report” and provide more substantiated data.
Meanwhile, from Ciudadanos, Enrique Arriaga defended that “we all want to preserve our environment and cultural heritage, but we also have to take into account a fundamental aspect: legal certainty.”
From the PP, Zaida González recalled that, today, the works are authorized in 98% of its space and that the suspension only affects 2%, where the deposit is. The counselor asked the island president for clarity on the defense of the Cabildo reports and their actions, to provide legal certainty. Likewise, from CC, Carlos Alonso indicated that if there has been “damage” to heritage in the works, action should be taken accordingly, also because it demonstrates “legal certainty.”
All groups agreed to condemn the use of violence.