Today is a happy day for the residents of the Prado de San Sebastian, and by extension to all citizens of Seville: The Superior Court of Justice annulled the determinations Andalusia Seville PGOU for the construction of the new main library university park grounds of the Prado de San Sebastian.
The Chamber for Contentious Administrative TSJA reported today, June 16, 2009, a decision by estimating the first of the appeals against the construction of the new Library of the University of Seville in Parque del Prado de San Sebastian.
This statement, which is dated last June 4, receives essentially all of the lawsuits arguments made in September 2006 against the General Plan review of Seville, approved by Resolution of July 19, 2006, regarding the classification of the eastern front of the Park and Gardens Prado de San Sebastián (Diego de Riaño) and equipment for educational use.
Specifically, the ruling annulled the determinations of the General Plan to allow construction of the new Library of the University in areas of that park, which will result in cancellation of the acts that are issued or executed as a result of such determinations. Thus, planning permission granted by the Planning Department on 9 July-that is appealed to the Court of Administrative Litigation No. 7 - is also without effect.
The legal reasoning of the decision, with a total of seventeen Fundamentals of law extends over more than twenty pages, starting with a brief review of the background to the proposed action. Recalling the arguments of the litigants (the Owners of Diego de Riaño n º 9, as appellant, and Department of Public Works of the Junta de Andalucía, the Planning Department of the City and the University of Seville co-defendants), Case focuses its argument on the principle of sustainability and development sustainable enshrined in European Community law and assumed by the Law on Urban Planning of Andalusia (LOUA) and the revised Land Law state.
TSJA The decision of the opinion that the new classification of the eastern fringe of the park and equipment for educational use "can not be regarded as justified," recognizing the wisdom and validity of previous urban planning and, specifically, the Special Protection Plan of 1994 ( repealed by the new Plan), which brought up the Prado for the use and enjoyment of the public, releasing its central space made profitable or speculative threat. In this regard, the Board notes that "planners reserved above ground as a park, within the general concept of space, representing a reserve of land a right consistency and rationality in the urban development of the city "which" in no way can be varied by a subsequent review of planning general not justified "(FJ 12 º).
In this effect, as advocates, argued the appellant, the maintenance of urban planning prior to the General Plan 2006, because "once the scheduler chooses to reserve certain lands for the creation of a park as overall system, the decision is rational and consistent with the urban development itself. "
Thus, compared to the criterion introduced by the General Plan 2006, the ruling states that "the new grade [...] forget that the plot is built on land defined as a park within a general system as such is part of determinations members of the management structure ", so that should not vary. This means, in the opinion of the judges, that "the status of equipment for educational use in certain park land formerly qualified, attentive head-on against the rationality and coherence of urban development" (FJ 12 º).
Noting that the new qualification introduced by the General Plan 2006 can not find refuge in the provisions of art. 36 of the LOUA, Case (FJ 12 º) includes three essential assertions:
a) The new solution proposed by the planner in any way improves the structural organization of the city, or the capability or functionality to affirm an improvement in welfare of the population.
b) Reduction of the Park as a public destination floor can not be understood offset by the removal of trees elsewhere, as the park is limited to have severed a portion of it not only quantitatively but qualitatively as located in the center of the city.
c) The existence of the public park itself is justified, not to serve as motivation for the new grade as indicated in Spatial Memory PGOU about the current situation of sluggish Prado, unfinished space and disconnected from environment. In this regard, the TSJA states that these negative connotations not justify the reduction and segregation of the park, because, if anything, can only be attributed to the administration, not the public park and the public.
In short, the ruling states that the classification of the parcel as equipment for educational use is not justified because it "allows the building in an area free Urban Park System-General "(FJ 10 º) and" the reality of the facts shows that we have proceeded to the limitation of a park as such can not be limited, reduced, cercenación, weakening, stunting "(FJ 13 º .) Therefore, according to the Board, the decision of the Administration "has no coherence, rationality or logic in itself or determining the facts, has to be reiterated that involve the reduction of an integrated park in an overall coherent and rational the urban development of the city, so the rating is not justified by the reality of the facts "(FJ 13 º).
Foundations of the sentence fully analyzed the contents of the memory management of the new General Plan of Seville, highlighting its commitment to sustainable development, concluding that "not consistent qualification of equipment for educational use with the protection requirements environment arising from the art. 45 of the Constitution "(FJ 14 º). In this regard, the Board contends that "the limitation, segregation and reduction is a public park, from the environmental prism [...], segregation, limitation and reduction of green zone" so that "the limitation the park and green area of \u200b\u200badding a bonus of irrationality and incoherence to review contested. "
Therefore, the resolution states that "sustainable development and the principle of integration in urban planning requires that the option chosen, must be the most coherent and rational with the specified principles governing the planning and environmental matters, and the present circumstances has to be reiterated that different options exist location of the building, the choice is far from being the most coherent and rational urban space and environmental. " From this he concludes that "the status of equipment for educational use can not be understood to involve proper and rational strategy of sustainable development, because no one can say that would tend to search for factors of balance between nature and city "(FJ 15 º).
Finally, contrary to what claimed by the legal representation of the University, the TSJA believes that the resource estimate, "the educational interests are not prejudiced in its consideration and planning, since the Administration recognizes the existence of alternative locations for location and building of the library, thus representing the interests the University in no way harm. " In this regard, in addition, the Board notes, as claimed the appellants, that "the status of equipment for educational use does not promote the general interests of the city that is the public park, on the contrary weakens in a clear setback to encourage university educational interests can not prevail over the general, especially when representing the educational interests of the construction of the University Library may well be satisfied with other discretionary options recognized by the Administration, which is the arbitrariness of the classification chosen "(FJ 13 º).
The Court did not rule on the claim that determinations regarding the General Plan regarding the location of the Library university breach Park land protection requirements inherent in the ownership of the Prado de San Sebastian to a historic Seville. This argument, as expressed by the sentence itself (FJ 16 º) will be prosecuted specifically when the Board resolved the administrative appeal 858/2006, pending, which is requested as a separate application Prado inclusion in the Catalogue of Public Spaces protection of the Historic Seville.
Along with this statement, which has lectured the judge Don José Santos Gómez and may be appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court shall be notified shortly other parties to resolve the remaining appeals against the construction of the library in different areas of the Park Owners communities around the Prado de San Sebastian and the Association of Neighbors "Neighborhood Health Huerta, whose decisions are expected to coincide with that is known today.
This statement, which is dated last June 4, receives essentially all of the lawsuits arguments made in September 2006 against the General Plan review of Seville, approved by Resolution of July 19, 2006, regarding the classification of the eastern front of the Park and Gardens Prado de San Sebastián (Diego de Riaño) and equipment for educational use.
Specifically, the ruling annulled the determinations of the General Plan to allow construction of the new Library of the University in areas of that park, which will result in cancellation of the acts that are issued or executed as a result of such determinations. Thus, planning permission granted by the Planning Department on 9 July-that is appealed to the Court of Administrative Litigation No. 7 - is also without effect.
The legal reasoning of the decision, with a total of seventeen Fundamentals of law extends over more than twenty pages, starting with a brief review of the background to the proposed action. Recalling the arguments of the litigants (the Owners of Diego de Riaño n º 9, as appellant, and Department of Public Works of the Junta de Andalucía, the Planning Department of the City and the University of Seville co-defendants), Case focuses its argument on the principle of sustainability and development sustainable enshrined in European Community law and assumed by the Law on Urban Planning of Andalusia (LOUA) and the revised Land Law state.
TSJA The decision of the opinion that the new classification of the eastern fringe of the park and equipment for educational use "can not be regarded as justified," recognizing the wisdom and validity of previous urban planning and, specifically, the Special Protection Plan of 1994 ( repealed by the new Plan), which brought up the Prado for the use and enjoyment of the public, releasing its central space made profitable or speculative threat. In this regard, the Board notes that "planners reserved above ground as a park, within the general concept of space, representing a reserve of land a right consistency and rationality in the urban development of the city "which" in no way can be varied by a subsequent review of planning general not justified "(FJ 12 º).
In this effect, as advocates, argued the appellant, the maintenance of urban planning prior to the General Plan 2006, because "once the scheduler chooses to reserve certain lands for the creation of a park as overall system, the decision is rational and consistent with the urban development itself. "
Thus, compared to the criterion introduced by the General Plan 2006, the ruling states that "the new grade [...] forget that the plot is built on land defined as a park within a general system as such is part of determinations members of the management structure ", so that should not vary. This means, in the opinion of the judges, that "the status of equipment for educational use in certain park land formerly qualified, attentive head-on against the rationality and coherence of urban development" (FJ 12 º).
Noting that the new qualification introduced by the General Plan 2006 can not find refuge in the provisions of art. 36 of the LOUA, Case (FJ 12 º) includes three essential assertions:
a) The new solution proposed by the planner in any way improves the structural organization of the city, or the capability or functionality to affirm an improvement in welfare of the population.
b) Reduction of the Park as a public destination floor can not be understood offset by the removal of trees elsewhere, as the park is limited to have severed a portion of it not only quantitatively but qualitatively as located in the center of the city.
c) The existence of the public park itself is justified, not to serve as motivation for the new grade as indicated in Spatial Memory PGOU about the current situation of sluggish Prado, unfinished space and disconnected from environment. In this regard, the TSJA states that these negative connotations not justify the reduction and segregation of the park, because, if anything, can only be attributed to the administration, not the public park and the public.
In short, the ruling states that the classification of the parcel as equipment for educational use is not justified because it "allows the building in an area free Urban Park System-General "(FJ 10 º) and" the reality of the facts shows that we have proceeded to the limitation of a park as such can not be limited, reduced, cercenación, weakening, stunting "(FJ 13 º .) Therefore, according to the Board, the decision of the Administration "has no coherence, rationality or logic in itself or determining the facts, has to be reiterated that involve the reduction of an integrated park in an overall coherent and rational the urban development of the city, so the rating is not justified by the reality of the facts "(FJ 13 º).
Foundations of the sentence fully analyzed the contents of the memory management of the new General Plan of Seville, highlighting its commitment to sustainable development, concluding that "not consistent qualification of equipment for educational use with the protection requirements environment arising from the art. 45 of the Constitution "(FJ 14 º). In this regard, the Board contends that "the limitation, segregation and reduction is a public park, from the environmental prism [...], segregation, limitation and reduction of green zone" so that "the limitation the park and green area of \u200b\u200badding a bonus of irrationality and incoherence to review contested. "
Therefore, the resolution states that "sustainable development and the principle of integration in urban planning requires that the option chosen, must be the most coherent and rational with the specified principles governing the planning and environmental matters, and the present circumstances has to be reiterated that different options exist location of the building, the choice is far from being the most coherent and rational urban space and environmental. " From this he concludes that "the status of equipment for educational use can not be understood to involve proper and rational strategy of sustainable development, because no one can say that would tend to search for factors of balance between nature and city "(FJ 15 º).
Finally, contrary to what claimed by the legal representation of the University, the TSJA believes that the resource estimate, "the educational interests are not prejudiced in its consideration and planning, since the Administration recognizes the existence of alternative locations for location and building of the library, thus representing the interests the University in no way harm. " In this regard, in addition, the Board notes, as claimed the appellants, that "the status of equipment for educational use does not promote the general interests of the city that is the public park, on the contrary weakens in a clear setback to encourage university educational interests can not prevail over the general, especially when representing the educational interests of the construction of the University Library may well be satisfied with other discretionary options recognized by the Administration, which is the arbitrariness of the classification chosen "(FJ 13 º).
The Court did not rule on the claim that determinations regarding the General Plan regarding the location of the Library university breach Park land protection requirements inherent in the ownership of the Prado de San Sebastian to a historic Seville. This argument, as expressed by the sentence itself (FJ 16 º) will be prosecuted specifically when the Board resolved the administrative appeal 858/2006, pending, which is requested as a separate application Prado inclusion in the Catalogue of Public Spaces protection of the Historic Seville.
Along with this statement, which has lectured the judge Don José Santos Gómez and may be appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court shall be notified shortly other parties to resolve the remaining appeals against the construction of the library in different areas of the Park Owners communities around the Prado de San Sebastian and the Association of Neighbors "Neighborhood Health Huerta, whose decisions are expected to coincide with that is known today.
0 comments:
Post a Comment