In Spain second-home owners have long trembled where lawmakers tread. Since the 80's I recall local governments and builders taking advantage of foreign owners who clearly didn't know the ropes. Or they did know them, but the Town Hall kept changing the goalposts. OK, I know that's a mess of mixed metaphors but not such an ugly mess as a heap of rubble which was your house and which represented all your savings. It's difficult to win when bent local government officials, lawyers, estate agents and builders are in cahoots, all after a big slice of your money for some building that isn't legal - or is only half-finished as is the case today with builders going belly-up so often. And then once you've spent it, they want to knock it down 'cos the law says they can. In this case it's not Spain's law but sod's law when this happens so often.
Valencia seems to be one province (but not the only one) which has a reputation for being unfeeling when dealing with what is and what isn't legally built, and one which seems to have it in for foreign residents. On numerous occasions its municipalities have demanded bulldozing of properties, appropriation of land, payment of fees for new roadways, extra taxes for services and utilities etc. So much so that many affected residents banded together (in a group called PNALC) and took their complaints successfully to Strasbourg. Everything seems to hinge round how one interprets the 1988 central government environmental law (La Ley de las Costas). Theoretically it imposes restrictions on new building after1988 and declares illegal dwellings or parts of dwellings if they infringe this law. Today the socialist central government seems to have decided to apply more severely this law which is putting the fear of God into anyone with a house within sight of the sea. La Ley's aim is to allow access to the entire length of the Spanish coast to you, me and the dog. Secondly it seeks to stop erosion and mass building.(see footnote link for a full explanation)
Good, I hear you say. Illegal building and the resulting speculation has been rampant far too long in Spain. There are far too many places where ugly hotels and blocks of flats label a nice strip of sand 'Private Beach' and put up a razor-wire fence to stop you passing through. Far too many huge private villas whose snarling Dobermans snap hungrily at the muscled bottoms of hikers as they walk the coast. Teach them a lesson. Give Spain back to the people. Agreed. But its hardly the scenario as when in good faith you've invested your life savings in a modest place on the coast after being assured by both the builder and the Town Hall that everything was kosher and then ten years down the line one morning you find a bulldozer revving outside backed up by the Guardia Civil waving a court order for demolition of 'Casa Mia', your bolthole to the sun.
And, as in the case of Ampuriabrava, a Venice clone (canals not buildings) on the Costa Brava, things get complicated. La Vanguadia this week ran an article about how owners of houses built canalside would have to demolish parts of their property to allow people access to walk along the canals. Now that would be bad enough if it only meant the public walking through a slice of your ex-garden, but in many cases it's more than that. It's a question of say, the shallow end of the swimming pool, or half the boat garage you built, or in the worse case scenario your extra bedroom where, in the future, Joe Public will be able take a shortcut on his morning walk to get his Daily Mail or Rheinische Post and croissants. It's also not clear who would pay for the removal of any such 'obstacles'. You, the owner, or the Town Hall .
Another complicating factor in the Ampuriabrava case is that many owners over the years, pre and post 1988, without consulting either lawyers or the Town Hall, have taken it for granted they could extend their properties 'just a few metres' and join their moorings up to the gardens - and naturally local construction companies were 'glad to help'. After all Helmut from Hamburg and Gunter from Giessen on either sides of the house have done it and they've been here for years so it must be OK, mustn't it!
Lots of things seem to be unclear with regard to the application of La Ley but what is certain is that it looks like the Battle of Ampuriabrava - and any others like it - will be long and drawn out, since the vast majority of these prime properties are owned by people who can pay afford to pay lawyers so they are not going to take invasion of their privacy lying down. You can sympathise with both owners and the public. Both sections have rights but both want the opposite. The owners want privacy and the public access. Whose side are you on?
Footnote/Link Mark Strickland's site in English which explains the main clauses of La Ley de las Costas and which shows how open to interpretation many clauses could be.
http://www.spanishpropertyinsight.com/buff/spain/faq/ley-de-costas-coastal-law/
No comments:
Post a Comment