ARCHIVED - Murcia court rejects 41.5-million-euro compensation claim from Paramount theme park promoters

The planned tourist complex in Alhama encroached on protected land in the regional park of El Valle y Carrascoy

It is now some years since plans to build a Paramount theme park in Alhama de Murcia were cancelled, ending hopes that a major international tourist attraction would be located in the Costa Cálida, but the matter continues to make the news due to the financial problems and demands of the company which was put in charge of finding sponsors for the ambitious project.

The latest development this week is that the High Court of Justice of the Region of Murcia has rejected a claim made by the promotion company, Premursa Theme Park SA, for 41.5 million euros in compensation for the annulment of the Paramount project by the courts in the light of objections raised by the Ecologistas en Acción organization in 2013. At that point the Town Hall of Alhama had given permission for the theme park to be built alongside the Regional Park of El Valle and Carrascoy, but a subsequent decision in Spain’s Constitutional Court meant that 21 per cent of the land on which the theme park was to stand was protected against development, and the project was therefore illegal.

The rejection of the 41.5-million-euro claim has been welcomed by Ecologistas en Acción, who clarify that it has been denied because the Paramount project had not reached the point in construction which would have meant compensation being due: in fact, very little work at all had been done on the land apart from the ceremonial laying of a first stone by the then president of the regional government, Ramón Luis Valcárcel, and some initial land clearance.

In addition, the ecologists maintain that both the promotors of the Paramount park and the regional government were well aware that the project would probably be annulled, having been warned of the probable ruling by the Constitutional Court, but continued to press ahead despite the odds being stacked against them. For this reason, the group asserts, it would be “indecent” to pay compensation in any circumstances.