The owner and promoter of what was to be a restaurant on the only empty plot in the area of the Segundo Montañar in Jávea has issued a statement explaining the situation, in legal measures, passed during the last months.
And it is that the past 28 of February, the full Javea Town Hall ratified the decision of the mayor's office to suspend the license that was legally granted for the construction of a restaurant-cafeteria in the Segundo Montañar. In view of this decision, the owner and promoter of the plot has stated that "Our protection before the courts of Justice will not be limited to the civil and property liability of the Administration, but also to the criminal, in order to refine specific personal responsibilities on this decision, including the crime of prevarication in which there could be incurred responsible politicians and technicians of the City of Jávea ».
The owner states that his intention was to give legal use to the last unbuilt plot of the Second Mountain, «Being a building intended for the public service of beach users, among which the restaurant-cafeteria is contemplated, thus complying with the law and the current urban regulations».
«This fact caused that the neighbor of the familiar chalet adjacent to the plot, María Calatayud, resorted to the change.org platform and to the deceit (with falsehoods) to collect 2.851 signatures against the project. For this, he defined it as a beach bar, noting that it would modify the current beach model. But any connoisseur of the Second Mountain knows that all its coast is urbanized by forty first-line chalets, with the only exception of the plot of the projected restaurant-cafeteria », says the promoter.
Also, the owner of the plot indicates that "Giving valid these falsehoods was when the City Council initiated a license cancellation procedure."
In the plenary session, the opposition parties stressed that the cancellation of the license would entail a "Millionaire compensation", but before these statements, the owner and developer has indicated "That was not our business model, we just wanted to use it within the law to a site that, paradoxically, the City Council sold us in its day to build, as the Calatayud family and other neighbors". Also, the owner indicates in the statement that contrary to what was argued in the plenary session by the Town Planning Councilor, "The indemnification will not be limited to the cost of an architectural project not executed, but if it is demonstrated that the suspended license was legal, it would include the loss of profit caused to the project, whose
Inauguration was scheduled for the next seasons of Easter and summer, adding also the successive while the process is settled in court.