Residents of La Capitana Street in Igueste de Candelaria are calling for the opening of a right-of-way path. In 2021, the owner of one of the local properties placed a chain and padlock that restricts vehicular access to the pathway. This was done under a license granted by the Candelaria Town Hall. Those affected by this closure argue that this path is mentioned in the deeds of their properties—some dating back to 1964—and is designated as a agricultural route in the current General Planning Scheme (PGO) of the Villa Mariana. “They are going against their own urban planning criteria,” states one of the impacted residents, Andrea Celis. Additionally, they assert that the approved permission only pertains to a parcel at the edge of the pathway, not the entire area. Despite repeatedly requesting information, the municipal authority has never responded, they claim.
Residents of Igueste de Candelaria protest the blockage of a right-of-way / Andrés Gutiérrez
The town’s Planning Councillor, Reinaldo Triviño (PSOE), explains that the granted license is provisional. This means it is temporary and revocable “because the PGO states that there will be a roadway in that area. However, until the parcel is developed or adjoining properties are constructed, the landowners are not obliged to develop it or carry out any works”. He adds that “forced expropriation cannot occur as it is neither a green space nor for public facilities”. The granting of the closure permission is based on the fact that “the owner submitted her documentation and requested the license. The technician reviewed the file, and the license was granted appropriately. There might have been an error, as humans are fallible, but we reviewed the file and the license is indeed valid,” he asserts. “It remains merely a dispute between neighbours,” he simplifies.
At the entrance of the path, secured with the chain, Andrea Celis, along with Maite Belaza, Nélida Concepcion, Sergio García, and Antonio Escuela, recount the distress this issue has caused them. All of them, except for Celis and García (who are a couple), have the key to unlock the padlock and access their properties. The couple has a plot where they grow fruit trees and have had to complete all their work without being able to reach the site by car. They also claim the owner has thrown dead cats at them or damaged their nets. They report that the neighbour who blocks the path has suggested they use a set of stairs that is located on the other side of the property. This is a pedestrian path, overgrown with weeds, which at one point descends into a ravine. “To overcome the elevation and create a level pathway, we would need to use a considerable amount of material,” they explain. Another resident states that the license holder threatened to take her key, and on another occasion insulted her violently. “The attitude is very hostile. There are threats, arguments, and constant problems,” declares Belaza.
They took legal action after waiting for approximately a year, as the Mayor of Candelaria, Mari Brito (PSOE), promised an expropriation that never materialised, they stress. As time passed, they initiated judicial proceedings to have a judge determine the recognition of the right-of-way. They have also contacted the Ombudsman on five occasions without receiving a response. Now, they await a reply from the Canary Islands Transparency Commissioner, to whom the Town Hall must respond on this matter as a legal obligation. Celis hopes that this entity’s resolution will arrive in the coming days. Meanwhile, Councillor Triviño has not confirmed whether the council has already replied to the commissioner.
The residents of La Capitana Street suspect that the Candelaria Town Hall made an error in granting the closure license for this pathway. “Now they do not wish to review the file, as that would mean admitting there were mistakes,” says García. Another resident, Antonio Escuela, insists that a technician from the council visit the site to see what they are discussing. “They haven’t even come here to understand the situation firsthand,” he demands. They believe that prior to granting the license, a consultation period should have been opened for affected parcel owners to submit their objections. However, this was not carried out.
The neighbour who installed the chain and padlock did not wish to comment publicly on her neighbours’ concerns regarding the closure of the path.
