A judgement from the criminal court number 1 in Santa Cruz de Tenerife on October 3, which this publication has accessed, sentences the proprietor of the restaurant Bollullo Beach to one year and six months of imprisonment for certain construction activities in his establishments located within the protected region of El Rincón, in La Orotava. This court decision regards these actions as unlawful, aligning with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which sought a two-year prison sentence, as well as the Ecologist Coordinator El Rincón, who demanded a four-year sentence on the grounds of further illicit work at the beach bar on El Bollullo beach, alongside parking space modifications and other interventions. Nevertheless, the ruling does not reference these additional tasks and instead pertains specifically to the larger business.
The owner manages a restaurant perched atop the cliff overlooking the renowned El Bollullo beach, with a beach bar just above the pristine black volcanic sands of this secluded cove—one of the most picturesque spots in the north of Tenerife and the Canary Islands. It is also located in an agricultural zone covering two million square metres, which has been protected since 1992 by Spain’s first law of popular initiative (serving as a model for numerous other civic and environmental campaigns) and, notably, it has been burdened by a special sustainable development plan that has been “cornered” since its approval in 1997, despite various pledges for revitalisation.
The alterations at the well-known restaurant located at the end of the road leading to El Bollullo and the installation at the beach were reported almost immediately by the El Rincón Environmental Coordinator. These modifications were executed between January 2018 and March 17, 2021, by the entity Mercafuvre SLU. Although the owner plans to contest the judgement before the Provincial Court (having a period of ten days from notification to do so), the ruling imposes a “special disqualification” upon the owner “from exercising the right to passive suffrage for the duration of the sentence; a fine of 12 months at a rate of 20 euros, with the possibility of personal liability in the event of non-payment, leading to one day of imprisonment for every two unpaid instalments, and a special disqualification from any profession or trade connected to construction and the execution of hospitality facilities for a year.”
“The presentation of projects has not been considered”
In comments to Canarias Ahora, the owner asserted that while he respects the judge’s ruling, he intends to submit an appeal as he disagrees with the conclusions reached and the sentence imposed. He believes that “the presentation of projects and the application for licences” that he submitted to the Orotava City Council have not been factored into the decision, and that the reality of his business has not been accurately represented.
As it stands, the court deems him accountable for a violation of territorial planning (article 319.1) due to “unlawful and unlicensable” construction, orders him to cover the legal costs, and compels him to restore the “disturbed ecological balance as determined in the execution of the sentence according to article 794 of the Lecrim. However, this restoration process will invariably involve the removal of the two terraces constructed with wooden and stone platforms and concrete floors, approximately 15 x 40 metres in total area, which he built for the larger restaurant at the top. This construction also included lighting poles and a metal structure featuring a gabled roof and glass measuring approximately 10 x 15 metres and 3 metres in height, to which he added a pergola as part of the dining area.”
Furthermore, as highlighted by the Coordinator, “a square structure measuring about 4 x 4 metres was constructed on one of the terraces to serve as a kiosk-bar and another shed for a forklift, measuring 1.5 x 1 metre,” as specified in the ruling.
Illegal expansion between 2006 and 2007, with a different owner
The judgement elucidates, based on testimonies from various experts, that the works were executed on rural and coastal land. It also notes that the “Bollullo Beach restaurant” had already been subjected to illegal expansion between 2006 and 2007 (under a previous owner) and was henceforth involved in a process aimed at reinstating urban planning legality. Moreover, it posits that the constructions “were initiated without the defendant even having sought the requisite legal approvals necessary for such execution (urban planning licence and authorisation from the Vice-Ministry of Territorial Planning),”.
Planning and Ecological Transition of the Government of the Canary Islands), as mandated by Article 50 of the Coastal Regulation and Decree 171/06 dated November 21, regarding the procedure for processing authorisations in an easement area for the protection of the Maritime-Terrestrial Public Domain.
In addition, it is clarified that concerning the works requested for the restaurant, “we must consider that, to date, the structure is deemed an illegal establishment, the only usage accredited in the municipal regularisation file and in its respective file of the Special Plan is solely that of a restaurant. Hence, until the property is regularised, the administration may, at any time, initiate a procedure to restore urban planning legality and, consequently, the execution or approval of any work.
Inability to construct new hotels and a swimming pool
Although it does endorse the works of a pond and the restoration of walls (provided they receive authorisation from the Government of the Canary Islands and Coasts due to their location in an easement area), it specifies that the viewpoints will not possess tourist or financial exploitation. The ruling underscores that these activities necessitate a major construction permit. Furthermore, the ruling also addresses “the minor hospitality constructions that are proposed to be constructed on the plots situated within the rural settlement area, where, in principle, hospitality usage is allowed. Nevertheless, the land intended for development (action zone n10 of the PER) does not qualify as a site because it does not connect to a consolidated road; hence, the urban use assigned by the Special Plan cannot be executed.” Additionally, it is determined that the primary agricultural use of the land is disregarded, favouring hospitality instead, and the option of a swimming pool as an adjunct to the hospitality use according to the stated planning is rebuffed.
It is also affirmed that, despite the visits and notifications from the Local Police and the Civil Guard regarding the execution of works without the necessary licences since 2018, the defendant did not alter his conduct and continued the activities and operation of the business on those terraces, which were fixed and not movable, as stated by the defence and some of its witnesses, in accordance with this ruling.
