- September 28, 2006 at 3:22 pm #52295
The new administration of Marbella council are meeting tomorrow to discuss the fate of 19 developments whose licences were granted by the old council. Amongst them…
La Reserva de Marbella
Guadalpin Banus (Aifos)
Los Patios de Santa Maria
Complete list at http://www.diariosur.com
We shall see 🙄
- September 28, 2006 at 3:26 pm #66171
Also the Green Hills building licence.
It’s going to be quite a day…..
- September 28, 2006 at 5:22 pm #66176
I’m having trouble finding the page could you point me to it.
- September 28, 2006 at 5:34 pm #66178
Dorothy sent me this link this morning:
It’s in Spanish, but the list of all the building licence holders are boxed on the right of the article.
- September 28, 2006 at 5:58 pm #66179
- September 28, 2006 at 8:41 pm #66187
Barbara, is Green Hills, Apex 2000? A typical example of the many faces within Grupo Eralia. Although Apex 2000 heads the tree!
- September 28, 2006 at 9:54 pm #66191
Yes Claire, Apex 2000 owns the building licence for Green Hills.
It is building licence no. 1342/02 (we double-checked 😉 )
- September 29, 2006 at 6:38 am #66194
Thank you Barbara. 🙂 IF there is a decision today, it will be quite a catylist day for many. 😯
This news goes against the earlier info we were given that a decision would not be made until after the elections in 2007 earliest, or maybe not until 2008! 😕 It seems you “take your pick” on what to believe. 🙄
- September 29, 2006 at 8:43 am #66197
Today is not a judicial review (tribunal hearing in the court) Claire.
This is the ‘new’ administration in the Town Hall taking it upon themselves to decide whether to revoke the licences that were issued illegally by the old Town Hall lot.
Remember Apex 2000’s original building licence for the area of Green Hills (like Los Lagos) only had permission for 12 individual houses or town houses according to the Junta’s PGOU plan.
Any building licence given by Mayor Gil in 2003 was according to his own plan that he probably cooked up with some developer-mates over a few bottles of Tinto.
This plan of his, at the time, was certainly a licence to print money. Have this vision of him being buried, clutching a bunch of brown envelopes.
Dorothy, get ready with your links re. news of the outcome. We are depending on you.
- September 29, 2006 at 9:24 am #66199
The information I have managed to get from people ‘in the know’ in the Santa Maria area is as follows. Obviously this is given without any guarantees of it correctness these are just opinions.
In general the situation is that nothing in Santa Maria Area has a first occupancy license (we all have power, water, telephones and have our properties registered by the way)
This is not unusual as Town halls historically take forever to issue them.
A lawyer for two of the communities / developments in the area without a LFO is sure that their building license was completely legal, and it can be assumed the same will apply to all in the Santa Maria area
The same laywer found it very strange that they are canceling licenses issued without a legal process to allow this.
The other strange thing is that any damage suffered by owners as a result of this action can be followed up by action from the individuals against the town hall for issuing the building license, i.e. Town hall cancels this license and automatically also responsible for any damages for issuing a faulty license in the first place. Makes no sense
In general he has no idea as to their plans but feels this may be part of a process not clear as yet to fine the developers, although again how they intend to do this is not clear as they have issued them with legal building licenses.
His view is we have to wait to see their plan but for sure no action can be taken against units occupied by third parties that effect the third party.
I don’t know whether this helps but there you are.
- September 29, 2006 at 9:39 am #66201
His view is we have to wait to see their plan but for sure no action can be taken against units occupied by third parties that effect the third party.
Hi Paul – your news from this lawyer is certainly encouraging.
But re. your statement above, what about the block of apartments near Gibralter that was emptied of occupants and pulled down?
And what about two developments recently in Elviria where they were taped off by the police, and one was ’emptied’ of occupants including the caretaker.
Do you have any news what has happened there since this happened? (can’t remember the name of the development, just that it was in Elviria)?
- September 29, 2006 at 9:45 am #66202
Just read this morning that the new building in marbella which is for the Colegio de Abogados is due to be inaugurated next week doesn’t have a licence 🙄 You have to smile don’t you.
- September 29, 2006 at 10:37 am #66203
Proposed idea to legalise 85% of the towns irregular housing.
- September 29, 2006 at 10:55 am #66205
I asked ‘those that say they know’ because two of the developments in question are very close to ours and have been there longer. So I was concerned about ours next door, so to speak, which is a younger development, even though the building licence must have been granted six years ago. Patios for example was finished over six or seven years ago.
I don’t know about the Gibraltar one, but from memory the other Elvira developments closed by the police where brand new and there was evidence of corruption (I know, I know don’t start on me 😉 )
What is being implied here (I think) is that the building licence was granted by the corrupt town hall, and there is no evidence to suggest that the promoter paid for the pleasure. So it is in fact a legal licence but based on the corrupt administrations interpretation of the PGOU plan.
My view for what its worth is that the corrupt town hall issued some licences for money and licences wrongly to throw others off the scent. Which would make sense if you think about it, an urbanisation in the middle of a green zone would stand out like a sore thumb without others around it. So if I had a criminal mind i would take money for some but invite others for free that way it just makes me look like I’m acting on my interpretation of the PGOU plan.
Just my opioion of course and hopefully you don’t think i’ve got a criminal mind 😕
- September 29, 2006 at 11:01 am #66207
Barbara the apartments you refer to are Hacienda Playa. It is so strange that they have taped off one block that is surrounded by other blocks that appear to be fine.
The block still has local police tape all around it preventing entrance, or at least they did have up until Monday 18 October when we left the area.
We are looking for news on La Reserva so if anybody finds anything that relates to an outcome on today’s meetings, please let me know.
- September 29, 2006 at 11:25 am #66209
- September 29, 2006 at 6:32 pm #66235
- September 29, 2006 at 7:55 pm #66241
Sorry my Spanish is not up to much. Can anybody give me a precis in English of the article Dorothy has found and posted.
- September 29, 2006 at 8:59 pm #66245
When you go into the article, right click on your mouse and you should see an option to translate into English.
Hope it works
- September 30, 2006 at 10:49 am #66259
Could any kind person please translate the last link posted. ❓
- September 30, 2006 at 12:02 pm #66260
Dorothy, I presume you are talking about my post.
On my laptop if I log on to the link you provided www. diariosur I can translate the article regarding the meeting into English by using the right click on the mouse and there is an option to “translate page to English”.
My apologies if my explanation was not clear.
I thought that option is available to everyone. If not I could copy the translation and post it on the forum.
- September 30, 2006 at 12:33 pm #66262
Not sure it is 100% correct – my Spanish is fine until it gets to gobbledegook – even my English cannot translate gobbledegook that well. In a nutshell the text below is a rough translation as I understand it.
In a nutshell it is saying that there are 19 licences issued under a PGOU that itself was never approved, that the buildings are already completed and that the likely scenario is demolition – although they are looking for other solutions to the problem — including resubmitting the existing PGOU.
Hope this helps
“The managing commission of the City council of Marbella today approved to procedures to revise 19 Building licences, among them those relative to the Hotel Guadalpín Banús and several real estate promotions that amount to a thousand houses.
Spokesman, Rafael Duarte, indicated that the license granted to the promoter Romed SL for the construction of 460 houses, is the same as those granted to the Apex companies 2000 y Turpiana SA for the construction of 192 and 168 houses, respectively.
Duarte stated that the nineteen licenses were granted according to the (PGOU) of 1998, “which was never approved”, and stated that, except for the file and a detailed study relative to Condeor, the rest have already been built and the buildings now occupied.
He also indicated that, according to the studies made by the technical and legal services of the City council “the anticipated scenario is that those licences are going to be revoked” and explained that the revision process culminates in the Consultative Council of Andalusia, will send a report to determine if these licenses “are contrary to the law”.
In this sense, the spokesman stated that the cancellation of the licenses would imply the existence of irregular buildings already finished and the measures to be applied would be demolition of these buildings, although he emphasized that the objective of the gestora is “to look for a legal path that has us facilitate a new general plan which will follow the route of compensation and other solutions”.
In spite of this, Duarte did not discount the possibility that the buildings will be demolished by virtue of third party interests and stated “there are very serious elements that affect structural aspects of the city that can take such measures”.
The commissioner emphasised that the gestora has initiated the revision of more than 70 building licenses of previous corporations before the existence of “a lucecita” as a warning on the possibility that “they were illegal”.
The Hotel Guadalpín Banús, one of two five star establishments that the Aifos group has in the city is registered on a building license granted in a plot set aside mostly for single family dwellings in which the promoter had already exceeded the allowed building co-efficient.”
- September 30, 2006 at 3:43 pm #66265
Thanks Vince, appreciated. 😉
- September 30, 2006 at 4:07 pm #66266
Just to add that the licence given to APEX 2000 for 192 apartments is Green Hills
- September 30, 2006 at 5:02 pm #66268
As suggested earlier in the thread.
In general he has no idea as to their plans but feels this may be part of a process not clear as yet to fine the developers, although again how they intend to do this is not clear……..
Threaten demolition maybe?
I have asked for an update I’ll report back after the weekend.
- September 30, 2006 at 5:11 pm #66270
I smell fudge 🙄
- September 30, 2006 at 7:03 pm #66275
I smell fudge
So do I, but what can they do? If the buildings are ‘illegal’ are we seriously expecting them to demolish Los Patios, Las Terrazes, Los Lagos, Green Hills, Santa Maria Village along with Los Jardines. I for one don’t think so, in fact I’ll give odds and take bets that they do not.
It will be interesting to see what happens as the promoters where issued with building license by the town hall and unless they can now prove that the promoters knew these where “contrary to the law” who is going to be censured here? The promoter will say they built in good faith believing the building licence to be legal and blame the town hall, which makes the town hall liable for any “route of compensation. Clearly the Town Hall would like the promoters pay heavy fines so that at least justice seems to have been done.
Tough call, but you can bet that property prices will be suppressed because of it and that will bring even more pressure to bear on the town hall to find a solution quick as the whole economy of the region will suffer.
just my opinion
- September 30, 2006 at 8:03 pm #66277
I agree with you Paul in that I do not think they will demolish all of these developments.
- September 30, 2006 at 9:06 pm #66280
I too doubt very much that they would start to demolish all or part of these developments.Compensation would have to be paid by someone ie the Town Hall who has no money. Just one thought re Los Lagos. If the Town Hall granted a building licence on the grounds that town houses and villas was to be built and then 340 apartments appeared instead….Also if this was the case, surely the Town Hall must have, at some point, noticed that apartments were being built and not town houses and villas 🙄 Do they never inspect any sites? 🙄
- September 30, 2006 at 9:16 pm #66281
Do they never inspect any sites? 🙄
NO!! 🙄 Therein lies the problem!! 😕
- September 30, 2006 at 10:37 pm #66282
Clearly we are trying to interpret whats happening and to quote laggen
Just one thought re Los Lagos. If the Town Hall granted a building licence on the grounds that town houses and villas was to be built and then 340 apartments appeared instead
You are implying here that the Town Hall Granted a licence for town houses and the promoter built apartments.
Yet to quote charlie from another thread regarding the rejection of the application of the LFO at Los Lagos reads.
Last month, on August 16th, Marbella Town Hall Planning Dept. rejected the developer’s application for a Licence of First Occupation through Administrative Silence for Los Lagos, Santa Maria Golf……on two grounds.
One of the reasons stated is that the building licence for Los Lagos was based on an illegal plan for the area (one of the corrupt Mayor Gil’s own plans).
The building licence was not in accordance with the Junta’s 1986 PGOU plan – which allowed only the building of townhouses or individual houses. Not 340 apartments!
Therefore application for LFO rejected, and the building licence is now waiting for a judicial review.
That is the building licence was BASED on a plan which was ILLEGAL and the licence should not have been granted by the town hall, but was!
Unless of course the licence was obtained by illegal means by the promoter, the promoter is in the clear.
- September 30, 2006 at 11:02 pm #66283
As I understand it, what happened was the original building licences were in accordance with the Junta’s 1986 PGOU plan, which allowed only the ‘low density’ building of x-amount of villas or town houses.
During the corrupt Mayor Gil’s time (in Los Lagos’s case around 2002/3?), the developers applied to have these building licences changed to state they could build blocks of apartments.
Mayor Gil had formed his own PGOU plan (1998 I believe) which was not made with the agreement of the Junta de Andalucia (he had no legal right to do this) and issued licences for large developments where he shouldn’t have.
As I said on a previous post, this really gave him a licence to print money as developers were falling over themselves to have their licences changed for these large developments – and of course these developers were most ‘appreciative’.
Without mentioning names, we know of one developer who actually admitted to us that ‘this is the way things were done in those days’ and made the ‘backhander’ motion with his hand.
So the developers of these ‘illegal’ developments that do not conform with the Junata’s own 1986 plan knew very well that they were building where they shouldn’t really be building – their only problem now is that all the corruption has come to light, all their ‘mates’ are either dead (Gil) or in jail, and the doo doos has hit the fan.
The developers are innocent and it is all the fault of the Town Hall issuing them the licence in the first place?
Absolutely not !
The problem the new administration at the Town Hall has is either prove these developers were as corrupt as the jailed Town Hall ex-employees were, or simply accept full responsibility that it was only their own employees who were instrument in the corruption.
But this latter stance in a way is ridiculous because the fact remains that all the money found in Rocca’s (and others) bank accounts came from corrupt developers seeking a nod and a wink for their developments. Should they now be viewed as the innocent parties?
Not in my opinion.
Without the developers’ money, there would be no corruption scandal in Marbella.
- October 1, 2006 at 12:19 am #66285
If these buildings are legalised (which I think they will be) it should be with a massive penalty to the developer so heavy that they will never, ever be able to work on the Costa del Sol again. Perhaps they might turn an eye to the rest of the carbuncles that are appearing on the coast i.e the developments of AIFOS and ARENAL 2000 who seem to be building whole villages around Benalmadena/Estepona. They are sooo ugly that I am amazed that anyone would think of purchasing one, money laundering comes into mind when they continue to build and most of them remain empty.
- October 1, 2006 at 1:00 am #66287
I remember seeing it all earlier this year when we were out.
Think some of these architects, like the lawyers, didn’t attend all their classes.
- October 1, 2006 at 8:27 am #66290
- October 1, 2006 at 9:55 am #66291
Surely, or maybe not, 🙄 even if Gil altered the building licence, the Town Hall must have put their stamp of approval on it and therefore will have to be liable for any compensation should it come to that? They have no money, so the odds are that they will have to find a solution to legalise these developments.
- October 1, 2006 at 10:41 am #66293
Gil was the “Town Hall” wasn’t he……figuratively speaking!?
It’s quite obvious the developers will turn around and say they thought it was all legal!
IMO,the developers are not innocent parties to all of the consequences surrounding this situation. When they knew there were problems with the building licences back in late 2003/early 2004, they continued to sell them. When they knew in 2004 that only half of Green Hills was not to be built, if they were reputable, they would have contacted each & everyone of the upper block purchasers and told them of the situation and given them their money back instead of hanging onto it for a looong time. Anyone who could do that is as guilty as Gil in their underhanded & corrupt ways. I hope they get their just desserts!! 😈
- October 2, 2006 at 1:23 pm #66314
After reading the article regarding the outcome so far, the view from my contacts in the area is that, it would seem that they want compensation from the promoters and are using a veiled threat of demolition if they don’t get it.
I’ve asked to be kept posted
- October 2, 2006 at 5:34 pm #66328
They should join the queue….at the back!!!!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.