TenerifeGran CanariaLa PalmaLa GomeraEl HierroLanzaroteFuerteventuraÁrea Metropolitana de Santa Cruz - La LagunaAcentejoValle de La OrotavaIcodDauteSuroeste de TenerifeAbonaValle de GüímarÁrea Metropolitana de Las PalmasCentro Norte de Gran CanariaNoroeste de Gran CanariaOeste de Gran CanariaSuroeste de Gran CanariaSureste de Gran CanariaLa Palma CapitalinaValle de AridaneNoroeste de La PalmaNoreste de La PalmaLa Gomera NorteLa Gomera SurEl Hierro (comarca)Lanzarote NorteLanzarote EsteLanzarote SuroesteFuerteventura NorteFuerteventura CentroFuerteventura SurTenerifeGran CanariaLa PalmaLa GomeraEl HierroLanzaroteFuerteventuraÁrea Metropolitana de Santa Cruz - La LagunaAcentejoValle de La OrotavaIcodDauteSuroeste de TenerifeAbonaValle de GüímarÁrea Metropolitana de Las PalmasCentro Norte de Gran CanariaNoroeste de Gran CanariaOeste de Gran CanariaSuroeste de Gran CanariaSureste de Gran CanariaLa Palma CapitalinaValle de AridaneNoroeste de La PalmaNoreste de La PalmaLa Gomera NorteLa Gomera SurEl Hierro (comarca)Lanzarote NorteLanzarote EsteLanzarote SuroesteFuerteventura NorteFuerteventura CentroFuerteventura Sur
ES|EN

La Voz Canaria

Nullification of Gas Station Agreement in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

The Canary Islands Consultative Council declares the 2015 urban planning agreement between the City Council and Disa null and void.

Generic image of a legal document with a pen, symbolizing a legal dispute and the nullification of an agreement.
IA

Generic image of a legal document with a pen, symbolizing a legal dispute and the nullification of an agreement.

The Canary Islands Consultative Council has ruled the 2015 urban planning agreement between the Las Palmas de Gran Canaria City Council and Disa as null and void, intensifying the dispute over a gas station installation near the San Lázaro cemetery.

The decision by the Canary Islands Consultative Council compels the Las Palmas de Gran Canaria City Council to declare the urban planning agreement signed on March 12, 2015, with Disa as null. This ruling is based on the fact that the city council did not follow the legally established procedure, constituting a fundamental defect leading to absolute nullity, which cannot be rectified.
The request to resolve the official review procedure was submitted in February of this year by the mayor of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Carolina Darias, at the insistence of Pedruzcos Oil, a company interested in installing its own gas station in the area. This resolution now obliges the city council to annul the agreement, which had been under negotiation since 2013.
The original agreement aimed for the municipality to acquire part of Disa's land behind the Vegueta cemetery to create an exit route from Eufemiano Jurado to Avenida Marítima. In exchange, the zoning of Disa's plot was modified, allowing commercial and residential uses, and Disa was compensated with other land. The economic operation, valued at 3.31 million euros for the expropriation, involved a final payment of 0.88 million euros from Disa to the municipality.
In June 2017, the City Council proposed an addendum to the agreement due to the gas station's incompatibility with the MetroGuagua project, local residents' opposition, and the policy of relocating service stations outside urban centers. This addendum involved offering a new plot in the Siete Palmas area, valued at 1.73 million euros, requiring an additional payment of 53,305 euros from Disa. The addendum was approved in April 2022 and signed in November 2022.
Pedruzcos Oil filed objections to the addendum in July 2022, initiating a legal battle. Although in 2026 the zoning change and the agreement with Disa were validated, along with the denial of a license to Pedruzcos Oil, the latter requested an official review of the agreement in September 2020. A January 2023 ruling compelled the City Council to initiate this process, which concluded in February 2026 with a rejection of the business proposal.
However, the Canary Islands Consultative Council, in January 2025, ordered the City Council to restart the process, and has now ruled the agreement null and void. The core of the ruling lies in the expropriatory nature of the agreement, which required a declaration of public utility and the necessity of occupation—procedures that were not carried out. The City Council followed the procedure for mutual urban planning agreements, not expropriatory ones, which the Consultative Council deems a “flagrant breach” of regulations.

Related News