The Conselleria will present an appeal for annulment against the ruling which annuls the PATIVEL
![[Img #81414]](http://el7set.es/upload/images/02_2021/6035_1102-recurs-pativel.jpg)
As the autonomous Secretary for Territorial, Town Planning and Countryside Policy, Inma Orozco, explained to El7Set, the lawyers in the Generalitat and the experts are evaluating the contents and the consequences of the ruling to be able to take fundamental decisions. Once their conclusions have been passed on “we will adopt the measures which are considered necessary, taking the clear idea that the preservation of the shore is already irreversible”. In this way, the declaration of nullity by being contrary to right will be brought using an appeal for annulment to the same TSJCV as an infraction of the autonomous regulations and to the Supreme Tribunal, by being an infraction of the state rules and of the Right of the European Union.
Inma Orozco insists that PATIVEL is an absolutely necessary beneficial organisation plan for the active preservation of the shore. “In the technical plan, the wise moves and the positive effects on the shore are unquestionable. In the current context of the health crisis and climate emergency it is inescapable to be aware of what, only through a respectful and balanced development between the implantation of uses and activities and the preservation of landscape, cultural and existing environmental values along the coast, can we achieve a resilient and truly sustainable horizon”.
The Secretary for Territorial, Town Planning and Countryside Policy explains that “this is what PATIVEL sets out and is what is for this government: a plan which makes us proud, which, in spite of the normal controversies which planning generates, has had an invaluable social acceptance, and which in academic and specialist circles has been recognised as a model example in different conferences, symposiums and specialist publications on organisation of the territory and town planning. Without going further away, there is scarcely a week since we presented the study on the Valencia coast and the evaluation of its geomorphologic, environmental and heritage interest where the importance of maintaining the values and preserving the town planning of any rigidity of the non-artificial coastal sections was manifest”.
Inma Orozco does not hide her surprise at the nullity ruling, “certainly it surprised us and, in this way, I believe that it is important to emphasise that it means an incomprehensible change of direction from the TSJCV, which only a few months ago had guaranteed the process of the Horta PAT rejecting arguments which are now valid in their resolution of the PATIVEL. In fact, the resolution has not been adopted unanimously. There is a particular vote of three which if it guarantees PATIVEL in tune with the reports which both the Abogacía de la Generalitat as well as the Consell Jurídic Concultiu prepared at the time.
The ruling
From the Conselleria for Territorial, Public Works and Mobility Policy they consider that the contents of the ruling do not put in doubt the aspects of the PATIVEL contents but that it declares as null for some supposed formal defects referring to three matters which are considered little argued by the autonomous executive.
In first place the insufficiency, “and not absence” of the financial viability of the study. “we understand the attribution of this supposed formal defect is not right, as the documentation contained in the plan sufficiently justifies the financial consequences of the plan, up to the point of concluding that their approval gives no heritage responsibility. Although other financial aspects may be systematised in the same way, the result would be the same, which has no costs. Any other financial precision, having declassified only land in rural situations free from compensatory causes.
The second cause, the reports on the repercussion on young people, large families and the gender impact, “which is set out in the file, limit themselves to arguing that PATIVEL has no negative effect on these more vulnerable groups or those in need of protection. This is the formula which is usually used when the impact is not negative. Beyond this, as notes the particular vote, it does not demonstrate – neither on the part of the appellants nor in the arguments in the ruling – that a more extensive report would necessarily have changed its conclusion”.
And the third argument in the ruling is that of the environmental evaluation, as Inma Orozco explains, “both the environmental and strategic territorial study as well as the pronouncement of the environmental body in the environmental and strategic territorial declaration validate the chosen alternative paying attention to their environmental viability, but taking into account also their social and financial viability. The environmental evaluation does not determine that the alternative validity should be that which has the least impact on the medium, but that complying with the real functional and rational needs, results in being more viable environmentally. And this more than accredited in the documentation and in the validation of the environmental body”.
Does PATIVEL remain current?
In spite of the ruling, as it is not firm, PATIVEL continues being applied with all its consequences, and from the Conselleria they hope that the appeals for annulment are favourable and guarantee the criteria with those which are in place and can continue in force.
However, the autonomous Secretary insists that “the protection of the shore is already an irreversible matter, not as a caprice, but by being a necessity which unfortunately is shown by storm after storm, as is the case of the recent episode brought by Gloria. Our responsibility is to ensure a more resilient territory, kinder to the environment and safer for people and their assets and we will make it so using all the tools and judicial appeals at our disposal. This general interest, this greater benefit, always has to prevail over the expectations which people who own land affected can argue legally but that we have to know to put in context. Besides, we must not forget that tools like PATIVEL ensure active protection of the territory through the organisation of the compatible uses”.
In the event that the appeals do not prosper and the nullity is firmly confirmed, there would be the possibility of re-initiating the process attending to the formal questions which would persist. “We understand that if this was the case, the minimum level of protection would have to be the current PATIVEL, a tool which arose as the result of in-depth reflection, of the previous study of the reality of our territory and that we continue thinking that might respond to a general interest need”, stated Orozco.
As the autonomous Secretary for Territorial, Town Planning and Countryside Policy, Inma Orozco, explained to El7Set, the lawyers in the Generalitat and the experts are evaluating the contents and the consequences of the ruling to be able to take fundamental decisions. Once their conclusions have been passed on “we will adopt the measures which are considered necessary, taking the clear idea that the preservation of the shore is already irreversible”. In this way, the declaration of nullity by being contrary to right will be brought using an appeal for annulment to the same TSJCV as an infraction of the autonomous regulations and to the Supreme Tribunal, by being an infraction of the state rules and of the Right of the European Union.
Inma Orozco insists that PATIVEL is an absolutely necessary beneficial organisation plan for the active preservation of the shore. “In the technical plan, the wise moves and the positive effects on the shore are unquestionable. In the current context of the health crisis and climate emergency it is inescapable to be aware of what, only through a respectful and balanced development between the implantation of uses and activities and the preservation of landscape, cultural and existing environmental values along the coast, can we achieve a resilient and truly sustainable horizon”.
The Secretary for Territorial, Town Planning and Countryside Policy explains that “this is what PATIVEL sets out and is what is for this government: a plan which makes us proud, which, in spite of the normal controversies which planning generates, has had an invaluable social acceptance, and which in academic and specialist circles has been recognised as a model example in different conferences, symposiums and specialist publications on organisation of the territory and town planning. Without going further away, there is scarcely a week since we presented the study on the Valencia coast and the evaluation of its geomorphologic, environmental and heritage interest where the importance of maintaining the values and preserving the town planning of any rigidity of the non-artificial coastal sections was manifest”.
Inma Orozco does not hide her surprise at the nullity ruling, “certainly it surprised us and, in this way, I believe that it is important to emphasise that it means an incomprehensible change of direction from the TSJCV, which only a few months ago had guaranteed the process of the Horta PAT rejecting arguments which are now valid in their resolution of the PATIVEL. In fact, the resolution has not been adopted unanimously. There is a particular vote of three which if it guarantees PATIVEL in tune with the reports which both the Abogacía de la Generalitat as well as the Consell Jurídic Concultiu prepared at the time.
The ruling
From the Conselleria for Territorial, Public Works and Mobility Policy they consider that the contents of the ruling do not put in doubt the aspects of the PATIVEL contents but that it declares as null for some supposed formal defects referring to three matters which are considered little argued by the autonomous executive.
In first place the insufficiency, “and not absence” of the financial viability of the study. “we understand the attribution of this supposed formal defect is not right, as the documentation contained in the plan sufficiently justifies the financial consequences of the plan, up to the point of concluding that their approval gives no heritage responsibility. Although other financial aspects may be systematised in the same way, the result would be the same, which has no costs. Any other financial precision, having declassified only land in rural situations free from compensatory causes.
The second cause, the reports on the repercussion on young people, large families and the gender impact, “which is set out in the file, limit themselves to arguing that PATIVEL has no negative effect on these more vulnerable groups or those in need of protection. This is the formula which is usually used when the impact is not negative. Beyond this, as notes the particular vote, it does not demonstrate – neither on the part of the appellants nor in the arguments in the ruling – that a more extensive report would necessarily have changed its conclusion”.
And the third argument in the ruling is that of the environmental evaluation, as Inma Orozco explains, “both the environmental and strategic territorial study as well as the pronouncement of the environmental body in the environmental and strategic territorial declaration validate the chosen alternative paying attention to their environmental viability, but taking into account also their social and financial viability. The environmental evaluation does not determine that the alternative validity should be that which has the least impact on the medium, but that complying with the real functional and rational needs, results in being more viable environmentally. And this more than accredited in the documentation and in the validation of the environmental body”.
Does PATIVEL remain current?
In spite of the ruling, as it is not firm, PATIVEL continues being applied with all its consequences, and from the Conselleria they hope that the appeals for annulment are favourable and guarantee the criteria with those which are in place and can continue in force.
However, the autonomous Secretary insists that “the protection of the shore is already an irreversible matter, not as a caprice, but by being a necessity which unfortunately is shown by storm after storm, as is the case of the recent episode brought by Gloria. Our responsibility is to ensure a more resilient territory, kinder to the environment and safer for people and their assets and we will make it so using all the tools and judicial appeals at our disposal. This general interest, this greater benefit, always has to prevail over the expectations which people who own land affected can argue legally but that we have to know to put in context. Besides, we must not forget that tools like PATIVEL ensure active protection of the territory through the organisation of the compatible uses”.
In the event that the appeals do not prosper and the nullity is firmly confirmed, there would be the possibility of re-initiating the process attending to the formal questions which would persist. “We understand that if this was the case, the minimum level of protection would have to be the current PATIVEL, a tool which arose as the result of in-depth reflection, of the previous study of the reality of our territory and that we continue thinking that might respond to a general interest need”, stated Orozco.
