Demolition - yet for 8 years property owners never told

[peteroldracer]

the remark by Beachcomber,
"... ordinary people wouldn't have sufficient funds to bribe a Spanish MP ...."
is, surely, libellous???

To be libellous, I believe a statement must be untrue?

[Beachcomber]

An allegation of libel in this respect would fail on several counts.

I didn't say they would have to bribe a Spanish MP, I said they would not have sufficient funds to do so (In the event that such a bribe was solicited). Given the current state of Spanish politics it would not be unreasonable to assume that this would be the case.

You can libel an individual or an entity but not a general group of unidentified people.

As Peter says, the truth of a statement is an absolute defence against libel.

And ...(I wasn't going to bother again but it seems that some people just don't want to accept the true facts)

The Priors had a building licence issued by Vera Town Hall details of which had been published in the Almería BOP.

They paid, not only the fees and taxes associated with the purchase of the land and construction of the property to the Junta de Andalucía, and Vera Town Hall as well as architects and lawyers to ensure that it was all done properly but also had been paying IBI and the escritura was registered in the property registry.

The Junta was in contempt of court by carrying out the illegal demolition whilst appeals were pending in two courts higher up the scale than the Junta controlled kangaroo court in Almería which originally ordered it.

The situation of a finca which has been illegally extended way beyond its original footprint just down the road has been totally ignored by the authorities although I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that it is owned by a socialist politician!!

To save you from yawning I shall do it for you.

[Lavanda]

"... I wouldn't be so silly as to think I know anything about it ..." I understood the Priors had permission to build a rural house in a rural location and built a Costa del Sol villa and refused to keep goats, pigs, cows or even chickens. To be honest what has happened to them is dreadful but I'm not sure that any of us know the whole story - as in the whole facts. There are plenty of 'stories'. No?

[Lavanda]

P.S. This is the telling bit,
"...The ruling declared the license invalid because it demonstrated the existence of a urban nucleus on land classified as not for urbanisation, having also been shown that the house was not designated for agricultural or similar purposes as specified by the law applicable to land not for urbanisation."

We all saw the house as it was being demolished. Not exactly rural, was it?

[Anonymous]

Yes, it is very telling because if this argument was taken to its logical conclusion it could be applied to virtually every property built outside of an urban envelope and if it holds any validity why, two years down the line, have the other other properties with which it is alleged to 'demonstrate the existence of an urban nucleus' not been demolished?

Neither does this explain why the building licence was not challenged when details of its application were published in the Almería provincial bulletin when it quite clearly stated that the application was for the construction of a dwelling on non-urbanisable land in accordance with the land law of 1994. That''s not a 'story'. It is detailed quite clearly in the Almería BOP.

Also, let's not forget, that the Spanish Supreme Court ruled in the Prior's favour last year. That's not a 'story' either.

[katy]

Not very often I wish any ill will to anyone but in your case Lavanda I hope one day (because of your unfeeling attitude to people in a predicament) that your provincial Government really bites you in the ar..se Probably not bother you though as you have said your house is just bricks and mortar, not a home!

[julian]

ummm.....isn´t wishing that on Lavanda showing a bit of an "unfeeling attitude" towards her?

discussing the legalities of the demolitions is not "unfeeling"..... you yourself have previously showed yourself to be in favour of certain demolitions, does that mean that you hope that the govt. comes and bites you in ar.se as for being unfeeling towards those affected?

[katy]

Despite the Priors position being excellently explained by Beach and Lennox, Lavanda continues to post as if she has not read the posts. I shall not get bitten and one day I may tell you why!

I would have hated my elderly parents to be trapped in a place where they didn't want to be in the last years of their lives just because an incompetent junta cannot decide what is legal, illegal or alegal!

Yes, I do agree with demolitions as you say but, as you know with full market compensation you forot that bit.

[Jool]

I can only comment on the Priors and the Almanzora area as I know the properties and locations etc. In the vast majority of cases the town halls issued build licences and the builders went ahead and built. The big problem is that the town halls issued licences they either knew to be illegal, as in not approved by the Junta, and in many cases not even applied for, or they adopted the turn a blind eye approach. In other cases licences were issued when town halls had the power to do so without applying to the Junta but the properties were not completed until after the change and these properties also now have problems........ the whole situation was a complete mess.

As for the Priors, the law at that time stated that a licence for a house in that location meant that you could build a farmhouse providing you were using the rest of the land for agricultural purposes, ie to farm.........this restriction does not seem to have been explained to them. There are things not in the public domain about this but the key thing is they were not given the chance to defend themselves in Court and that is why they won the judgment, they 100% tried to comply with the law at every turn and sadly it is true that some local people expected they would be an expert on spanish law and lost sympathy and recruits to the cause that way, but none of us are, in fact even solicitors don´t agree! The ridiculous thing is that this whole area has had approval for re-zoning passed by the Junta under POTALA so the Prior´s house could have been legal as a normal villa anyway........

I was coming and going to that area for years since the late 1990´s and if I, as an occasional visitor, could see all the construction going on why couldn´t Seprona, local police etc etc?

[Bongtrees]

Lavanda continues to post as if she has not read the posts. I shall not get bitten and one day I may tell you why!

Spill the beans......I cant stand mysteries and secrets

[Lavanda]

Brilliantly and clearly explained, Jool. Thanks.

As for your 'Fairy Godmother at the Party' wish, Katy, thanks, but horrid things have already happened to me. That's why my perspective on what is, and what is not, important, may seem slighty weird to some people. Anyway. Let's try to keep it civilized, shall we? Personal abuse usually means someone has lost the thread. That's putting it nicely, I hope. As for me caring, or not, about people in a predicament, well, you don't know me and you don't know what I think is, and is not, a 'predicament' and worthy of me getting all excited about. We have different sets of values but that makes neither of us right or wrong - just different. No?

[Beachcomber]

the law at that time stated that a licence for a house in that location meant that you could build a farmhouse providing you were using the rest of the land for agricultural purposes,

Jool, could you state the law to which you are referring?

[Jool]

To give you a legal reference right now Beach no, but there were several built on that premise without any problem in the Almanzora area and without a dividing track.......it was a law about what kind of building was allowed on rustic land (it has been tightened up since to just the 2 categories of seca and regadio but permission in reality is never really granted these days, people get tired of the prolonged wait, 4 to 6 years on average for a final decision). In the old days....the land had to be complete in its plot and not divided by roads or tracks......I will see if I can find it but think it was rescinded in to the 2 categories only as above as the old law (going back to early 2000´s) was being abused.

Town halls varied in their interpretations but provided it was clear the property was being used a a genuine farmhouse and not just a large garden it was ok....and these had to be individual houses in rural land so I think this also is where the Priors came unstuck as they were not alone......

[Beachcomber]

Is this the law you mean?

http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/vivienda ... t?up=10032

It is certainly the one referred to by the Junta but, at least in the case of the Priors, the application was submitted and posted in the BOP several months prior to the date of the law. In fact, although the law was published in the BOJA on 31st December 2002 applications could be made up until the 22nd January 2003 and were valid regardless of the date of final granting. I know the coastal law is being applied retrospectively but they cannot apply this one in the same way.

In my area you now need at least 2,5 hectares to build a rural dwelling to be used for agricultural purposes but just keeping, for example, a goat and a few chicken will not suffice. You must also be registered for 'actividades agrícolas' with all the associated payment of taxes and social security contributions. However, this does not apply in the Prior's case because they beat the deadline.

[El Cid]

We built our house at about the same time. We got permission before the law changed and the requirement at that time, in our area, if you wanted to build on rustic land (SNU Suelo no urbanizable) you needed a minimum of 7000m2. There was no requirement that it had to have anything to do with agriculture.

This has now changed, as Beachcomber pointed out.

However, when we submitted the project to the Junta, their letter of approval to the town hall did note that as there were other buildings in the area, that they considered that there was a danger of creating a "nucleus of population" in the future if further houses were allowed to be built in the vicinity. Since then of course it has been impossible to build anyway under the new law so the situation has not arisen.

As I understand it, in the case of the Priors house, although it was on a large plot it was part of a development of a number houses in the same area and in their case the Junta considered that this definitely constituted a nucleus of population and overturned the licence on that basis.

Why they picked on the Priors alone is not clear.

Sid

[Lavanda]

We came to Extremadura to build our house as the situation in Andalucia was getting impossible for me to build and sleep at night. Even here, our architect overturned several of our ideas and proposals as not being in keeping with a campo house. She said that in order to get the permission we would have to conform to the rules. There are strict rules on, for example, the size of house in relation to the overall plot size and the height of the house. These, and other rules, do not apply to urban building plots. Of course it's impossible to be any kind of expert on a changing subject open to interpretation and that's why I agree with Beachcomber's post, some time ago, that people should only buy or build houses in Andalucia if they want to lose all their money.

[Beachcomber]

Sad, but true. I'm not even sure that a change of régime in the Junta would solve the problem. I can go along with the idea of protecting the countryside but the Junta would even prefer to allow beautiful old cortijos to go to rack and ruin rather than issue licences for their renovation with all the associated much needed employment for local traders and workmen.

It seems they want as all to live in conurbations of little rabbit hutches on the edges of city centres. Easier for them to wield their control freakery, I suppose.

[Mowser]

I read this earlier in Kyero

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero, visiting the European Parliament in Strasbourg, was warned he could face a campaign to stop EU subsidies to Spain unless he intervenes to stop the confiscation of expatriate properties.

[julian]

"the confiscation of expatriate properties"
I don´t think that that is really the problem that needs resolving here.

[Beachcomber]

This is specifically in respect of land grab in Valencia:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/break ... 44597.html

but it could have a knock-on effect.