A court has admitted Izquierda Unida's (IU) appeal against the closure of the passage under the Santander arch, allowing it to include the agreement made by the Local Government Board on 7 September. This agreement reclassified the section of road under the arch from 'roadway for vehicular use' to 'shared/restricted roadway' after the completion of construction works, effectively providing retrospective administrative support for a situation that had already been established.
In its initial precautionary ruling, the judge noted that the municipality had provided legal cover for a material situation that already existed, identifying it as a de facto situation. Consequently, the judge ordered the reopening of the passage. However, shortly after this decision was communicated, the Local Government Board, led by the People's Party (PP), approved the change of use as an urgent measure. This decision was based on six municipal reports issued on the same morning at the request of Mayor Gema Igual.
The municipality argued that the agreement altered the circumstances as it did not formally prohibit passage under the arch. As a result, the court temporarily lifted the order for reopening the passage for buses, taxis, residents, goods, and emergency services, believing that the new situation eliminated the risk of a permanent closure.
“This is good news because the agreement is now part of the appeal and will be reviewed by the judge, as it raises many legal doubts,” explained IU councillor Keruin Martínez.
Martínez asserted that the subsequent approval of the agreement does not erase the material action they denounced as a fait accompli; rather, it confirms it. He noted that the approval occurred while the municipality was still allowed to respond to the precautionary measures, suggesting it was intended to circumvent them.
The court has opened a separate case to consider IU's new request to suspend the agreement temporarily. Before making a decision, the court has given the municipality ten days to present its arguments.
“Unfortunately, the timelines of justice are what they are, but the matter remains as open as it was at the beginning, and we will see how it ends, beyond the fact that it has been demonstrated that Gema Igual, in collaboration with Banco Santander, has attempted to act outside the law to favour private interests over those of the city's residents,” Martínez added.
The case brought by the residents will be processed alongside IU's appeal. The court has decided to consolidate the proceedings, allowing both cases to be resolved in a single judgement.
“Residents must be present in the process because they directly suffer the consequences of the closure, as acting in this manner without providing alternatives affects their accessibility and safety,” Martínez highlighted.
Martínez recalled that just a year ago, residents were assured that they would regain services such as the passage of the TUS line 5C2 upon completion of the works. The route of this line has been significantly altered, leaving all streets on the southern slope of Santander without direct coverage for journeys towards the east. He has also called on Mayor Gema Igual to explain, “as she has always evaded the core issue,” why the municipality approved the change “under the cover of night” that benefits Banco Santander while harming local residents.
“Public space cannot be organised to favour a private entity and leave those who live here without accessible passage or alternatives. The mayor must clarify for whom she works and what her priorities are,” he concluded.
Martínez also reminded that the PP frequently speaks of the general interest, a sentiment echoed by the Cantabria government, also led by the PP, in their attempts to impose the PSIR Bosques de Santander. “However, the general interest cannot be invoked to justify a decision approved urgently and outside the agenda, while its consequences fall on the citizens. Public space must serve the residents, not be organised in offices to favour a private entity and leave an entire area without accessible passage or alternatives,” he concluded.
