Demolitions

Viewing 48 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #52668
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Marbella corruption latest………..demolitions described as inevitable

      http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/a … 9096.shtml

    • #69572
      katy
      Blocked

      I also heard this on the local news. One worrying statement that he made was “The Goverment will have to compensate people who bought in good faith but will have to prove that they didn’t know it was illegal” 😕 Unsure what to make of that, does it mean if you have completed without the LFO and the building is then demolished its your own fault. Would it be necessary to prove that you were given bad advice by a Lawyer??

    • #69581
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Just goes to show how prudent all the people refusing to complete without the LFO are.

    • #69583
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Dont think its much point going over the L.F.Os again
      There are around 50,000 by the last estimate and the ones that may or may not be demolished probably didnt have any planning in the first place.
      The way this sounds is if there is no L.F.O then its likely to be on the list.
      As Drakan pointed out they are bound to demolish one or two as an example.
      Dont think its a good idea to gloat as some are worried enough as it is.

    • #69584
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Well said glassman, well said

      To quote Drakan

      In some cases it will be advisable to complete without a LFO and in some not.

      Regards

      Paul

    • #69585
      Anonymous
      Participant

      glassman

      Dont think its much point going over the L.F.Os again

      Glassman, have you had a bad experience with having no LFO as you say “again”? I’ve read your posts and you’ve not mentioned them before. Only that you were looking to buy a property.

      I don’t think anyone is gloating about demolitions. That is a worse case scenario. There are many developments without planning permission and some developers are guilty of having obtained planning permission for one thing and building another. The development Green Hills in Elviria is a prime example. Planning was given for houses and blocks of apartments were built instead. 😯 I’d be surprised if they were demolished though.

    • #69586
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Paul, as you know, Drakan has said time & time again, he would not advise a client to complete without an LFO in place if the legality of the development was questionable and/or under investigation. I think he quoted Green Hills as a prime example.

    • #69587
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Yes, it has been a very worrying time and still is. First waiting for an LFO which seemed to be around the corner, that did not happen, then a revoked building licence. Apartments that were ready to move into etc Nobody had an answer of what to do next, because nobody really knew for sure. Then there has been a lot of speculation, opinions that have been just that, but has worried many and has been damaging in many ways. There has also been a lot of sound advice that has been very reassuring. As far as I have been led to believe, reading comments by politicians, planners etc, there will be very few demolitions and only in very extreme cases. So let´s hope that the ones of us who have paid deposits can soon complete and put all of this behind us.

    • #69588
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Hi Laggen,

      It would certainly ease a lot of the worries/stress if the authoroties would hurry up and make decisions as to which developments will eventually get the LFO’s, (even if they will not get them sometime soon.) It is so frustrating for all concerned. It appears there is no one who can get a real insight as to what will happen. It’s all speculative. Not knowing either way, is like teetering on the edge of a precipice. Stay positive, if you can.

      Claire.

    • #69589
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Claire

      Drakan has said time & time again, he would not advise a client to complete without an LFO in place if the legality of the development was questionable and/or under investigation

      How would he always know, Los Patios for example?

      He said when asked about this particular problem

      It’s an interesting conundrum. As I said, it can be argued both ways. In any case the Town Hall knows they are largely to blame (or at least the prior corporation-majors) along with the developer and it’s not like they are going to demolish the dwellings in this case you bring forth.

      It’s difficult to give a legal opinion on something which is of a political nature really. Once the new P.G.O.U. is approved most if not all these issues will be sorted out and illegal properties will be turned into legal. The other option is to demolish hundreds of houses which no politician is ready to undertake no matter what the judges rule. Would you ?

      Ironically although the non-residents have been the ones who have suffered all this (the innocent party of good faith) it will actually be the Town Hall itself –ironically- who will be compensated by the developers for all the “illegalities” with assets, money and land.

      The bottomline is that it is highly unlikely they’ll demolish houses in Marbella area because it goes against everybody’s interests and Spain cannot afford to make it on the UK’s front page headlines with bold letters saying “500 houses demolished in Marbella area. Brits panick and flea Spain !”. This will just not happen.

      The times we have talked about this and the same things get trotted out.

      To quote you Claire directly in a thread regarding Green Hills

      For what it is worth, I would be very surprised if these developments were demolished.

      Has this short and not very informative news article changed your mind? Tell you what Claire I will donate £100 to a charity of your choice if Green Hills is pulled down in the next 2 years (and post the receipt), you do the same for me if they are not.

      This talk of demolition for occupied completed homes is political rhetoric and as you should know not to be believed!

      Regards

      Paul

    • #69590
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Paul,

      You just love an argument and you particularly get a kick from having a go at me. You consistently misinterpret/misread what I have written. Sorry, I’m not rising to the bait.

    • #69592
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Claire

      You consistently misinterpret/misread what I have written.

      arh right

      I’m so sorry I thought I was quoting you.

      Sorry, I’m not rising to the bait.

      Don’t blame you i wouldn’t

      Regards

      Paul

    • #69593
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Morning folks

      The thing is, until the Powers That Be (PTB) actually release to the press and public exactly what is going to happen with the Green Hills, Banana Beaches and Guadalpins of this world we should probably breathe deeply, have a bit of patience and all stop speculating!

      For those caught up in the various issues then maybe try to take some comfort in the fact that at least the PTB are attempting to resolve them.

      Various people on this forum have been quoted as saying that the decisions being made are highly political and I would agree entirely. It is highly unlikely that any politician would order the demolition of a property where families with children are already living – political suicide!

      …..oh, and stop scrapping you two! 8) Life’s too short….save your venom for the corrupt developers, useless lawyers and the cr@p real estate agents!

    • #69594
      Anonymous
      Participant

      …..oh, and stop scrapping you two! Life’s too short….save your venom for the corrupt developers, useless lawyers and the cr@p real estate agents!

      OH ok 🙁

    • #69595
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Claire

      All I am doing is trying to get a fair and balanced view on the situation
      I could very well complete on a property without an L.F.O if a lawyer like say Drakan or the one I met while I was in Spain gave me all the information for ME to make an informed decision.
      You mentioned a development Green Hills and I have some information of which I am not 100% confident that is correct.
      Town Houses were approved under old planning going back many years and if built today would have qualified for an L.F.O even though it is Elviria
      The same applies to other developments in the area and the problem is that since approval the developers have applied for say apartments instead and have in most cases been given the O.K and thats what they have built
      The problem is that when they apply for the L.F.O they are refused as the town hall will only identify the original application of many years ago due to the overall corruption situation.
      I have been informed that the town hall needs to just identify any really bad cases of fraud which unfortunatly brings every development,even the innocent into the net
      Lets not try to worry people more than they need to.
      I would welcome comments from all if all or part of this information is correct and open it to the forum
      P.S I hear that Santa Maria Village which now is occupied by many and have a managment team are not even aware or bothered of the L.F.O situation at all.

    • #69596
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Which brings us nicely back to a good lawyer, which most of us didn’t have – we had the useless ones Sarah mentioned! 🙂

      So how do we ensure that we ALL get a lawyer of the calibre of Drakan? They all seem to talk a good job when you are there but as we all know the minute we get back to the UK they forget how to speak English/use email/make phone calls/write. And in our case they also lie, cheat and take money under false pretences.

      Sorry if I’ve gone off topic, but if we all had access to TRUSTWORTHY legal advice then we wouldn’t need to worry so much about the corrupt developers and cr@p estate agents.

      And please please please don’t use the ‘independent’ word – independence doesn’t equal honesty, trustworthiness and competence.

    • #69597
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Surely anyone who chooses to complete on a property knowing it is an illegal build they are taking a huge risk ❓ Even if the dwelling is not bulldozed, there is no guarantee if/when it would be legalised. If the owner then decided to take Developer to Court they’d have a tough time – the Courts could deem this as akin to knowingly dealing in counterfeit goods 💡 Counterfeit is probably not the right word but I can’t think of a better one at the mo ❗

    • #69598
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Surely anyone who chooses to complete on a property knowing it is an illegal build they are taking a huge risk ❓

      Rather like putting your hand in a fire, knowing you will get burned. 😕 Hopefully people are more aware of the problems now, than say three years ago and will look for properties that do have the correct paperwork in place especially if they are just venturing into buying.

    • #69599
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Oh well – it is wet and windy outside, so might as well join in the fun 😆

      I think Drakan’s stance on completing/not completing without an LFO has always been made very clear by him.
      Firstly, he dislikes completing without an LFO as a general rule.
      However if the property has no LFO because of something relatively insignificant and does not directly affect his client e.g.
      “It is ridiculous to delay completion for a year, for example, because a LFO is not being granted because there is something wrong with say some pipeline which is in the development but doesn’t affect directly my client”.
      then he feels it is alright in that kind of situation to complete without an LFO.
      However, completing on a property without a LFO with a suspended/revoked building licence is another matter (he has even gone so far as to say “it is insane to do so”) and if a client insists – he likes them to sign a statement that they are doing so against his advice.

      Paul800 – are you having a boring Saturday or something? As Claire has stated at least twice that in her opinion she doesn’t believe Green Hills will be demolished – why the silly challenge re. a bet?

      Katy – if you are out there (hope you are not having a boring Saturday) can you remind me – for a second time 😳 which development it was somewhere in Elviria where the police threw out the newly installed purchasers one morning (despite having celebrated their newly-formed residents’ committee the night before) and taped off the building. Do you know what eventually happened there? Did they let them back in or is it still taped off?

      Am bringing this up because no-one can think it can never happen. It happened last year.

    • #69600
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Please folks stop panicking. All this is just political jaba jaba because the elections are drawing near and they are winding the electorate, that’s all, no big deal, politics as usual.

      For all those who are fluent in Spanish:

      http://www.diariosur.es/prensa/20070124/marbella/vocales-desmarcan-documento-sobre_20070124.html

      http://www.diariosur.es/prensa/20070223/marbella/marbella-respalda-postura-consultivo_20070223.html

      Basically the left wing political parties (Izquierda Unida and the Ecologists) want almost all seriously illegal constructions to be demolished in Marbella (which is approx 500/30.000).

      In a more moderate position (and certainly IMHO more logical) stand the P.P. (centre right wing) and P.S.O.E. (moderate centre left wing).

      Only P.S.O.E. or P.P. stand a chance of winning local elections. My personal bet is placed on P.S.O.E. (which doesn’t mean I favour them politically, it only means I think they’ll win municipal elections).

      If they win they’ll probably demolish 1-2 illegal hotels (Senator for example, I really doubt Guadalpín is on that list) and other constructions which have been a symbol of corruption (Banana Beach ?) or which invade the public sea domain or greenbelt land.

      I personally believe that only one or two developments will be pulled down, if at all, and they are currently uninhabited by anyone, let alone foreigners.

      These press releases are carefully devised to stir up trouble, take no notice.

      The real problem is that it’s going to take 1-2 years until the new P.G.O.U. is approved for the 30.000 dwellings to be legalised. In the meantime there is an uncertainty regarding the utilities etc… but Marbella’s situation is “special” and I know that utility companies are reaching private agreements with developers in despite of the lack of L.F.O. for the less offensive cases from a planning perspective.

      I’ve said time and time again, no politician will undertake the responsibility of demolishing thousands of houses, their party would be black marked for years to come in local elections and no political party can afford this.

      What happens with Chiclana (Cádiz area) ? Are they also going to demolish the 30.000 illegal houses we also have there ? Of course not.

      It’s just politicians winding their electorate with unfounded press releases aiming to scrape some more votes.

      Regarding completion of developments lacking L.F.O. (due to very serious planning illegalities such as building in green areas) I’ve posted many times over I strongly recommend not to complete although I’m sure they’ll be legalised eventually it can take many years and in the meantime it’s the puchaser who will have to face huge problems because of it, it’s not as if they are going to demolish it.

      A different issue are illegal rustic properties in which case demolishments are likely, despite the houses being occupied by foreigners.

      May I remind everyone that the ASR does not work when there are planning irregularities otherwise it would be a joke.

      I’m sure all this political mess will be sorted out within the next 1-2 years. I always post that each case is different and needs a careful case-by-case study, giving general guidelines is always tricky.

    • #69601
      Anonymous
      Participant

      @charlie wrote:

      I think Drakan’s stance on completing/not completing without an LFO has always been made very clear by him.
      Firstly, he dislikes completing without an LFO as a general rule.
      However if the property has no LFO because of something relatively insignificant and does not directly affect his client e.g.
      “It is ridiculous to delay completion for a year, for example, because a LFO is not being granted because there is something wrong with say some pipeline which is in the development but doesn’t affect directly my client”.
      then he feels it is alright in that kind of situation to complete without an LFO.
      However, completing on a property without a LFO with a suspended/revoked building licence is another matter (he has even gone so far as to say “it is insane to do so”) and if a client insists – he likes them to sign a statement that they are doing so against his advice.

      Exactly, this is my legal position.

    • #69602
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Phewww!!! 😉

    • #69603
      Anonymous
      Participant

      😉 Bright girl as usual Charlie.

    • #69604
      Anonymous
      Participant

      😳
      I think I love you…..

      (don’t panic, only kidding 😆 )

    • #69605
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Drakan
      Instead of up to a couple of years to sort can you have a word to the powers that be to speed things up a little as in case they have not noticed there a thousands of people that may be worrying without the need and their economy is going to take one hell of a hit in the meantime.
      Just a thought ?

    • #69606
      Anonymous
      Participant

      @charlie wrote:

      …. which development it was somewhere in Elviria where the police threw out the newly installed purchasers one morning (despite having celebrated their newly-formed residents’ committee the night before) and taped off the building. Do you know what eventually happened there? Did they let them back in or is it still taped off?

      Charlie – I think it was Hacienda Las Chapas ❓ ❓

    • #69607
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Drakan – many thanks for your sound advice – as always 🙂

    • #69609
      Anonymous
      Participant

      quote glassman
      “You mentioned a development Green Hills and I have some information of which I am not 100% confident that is correct.
      Town Houses were approved under old planning going back many years and if built today would have qualified for an L.F.O even though it is Elviria
      The same applies to other developments in the area and the problem is that since approval the developers have applied for say apartments instead and have in most cases been given the O.K and thats what they have built”

      This is what I have also heard. As far as I know Los Lagos has no LFO and the building licence is under investigation, so it is with great suprise that the utility companies has accepted the LFO under administrative silence.

    • #69610
      Anonymous
      Participant

      sorry to go over old ground, but there is far to many horror stories about completing without an LFO to make it worth even considering in my opinion. With a very few exceptions, i think any advice to the contrary is developer/agent speak.

    • #69611
      Anonymous
      Participant

      charlie

      Paul800 – are you having a boring Saturday or something? As Claire has stated at least twice that in her opinion she doesn’t believe Green Hills will be demolished – why the silly challenge re. a bet?

      Just back from our boring family day out, life is never boring with a five and three year old (and no that’s not my age :-))

      Just tired of the same only rhetoric Charlie, which without given balance could panic people more than needed.

      Just offering my opinion again, like the rest of us here 🙂

      You where right Claire did mention on her post that she didn’t think Green Hills would be demolished, it would appear i miss read her post and for that i apologise. Bring your bat and ball back Claire I’m sorry 😉

      My regards as always

      Paul

    • #69612
      Anonymous
      Participant

      No bat & ball Paul…but I appreciate your apology. Thanks 😉

    • #69652
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Now, I don’t want to stick my hooter in where it’s got a better than average chance of getting bopped but can someone clear something up for me please.

      What is a LFO?

      Now, seconds out…….. Ding, Ding.

    • #69654
      Anonymous
      Participant

      😆

      LFO= Licence of First Occupation.
      It is vital to have this before you can get the utilities connected, although because it has become a big problem some utility companies are now giving people supplies rather than them having to depend on the builders supply, which is by it’s nature, very erratic. It is the LFO that deems the building legal to live in. You should not complete, in most cases, without one. Many of the developments in Marbella are completed but do not have the LFO given by the Town Hall. They have been withheld due to the corruption with the Building Licenses. Hence all the problems in and around the CDS.

      The problem currently is on new developments. You cannot sell on (flip) without the LFO. Older properties have often never had an LFO but have been sold many times over. That is OK. I think it is a comparatively new phenomenon to new builds over the last ten years maybe. ??? 😕
      Drakan is the man to tell you accurately.
      Hope this helps.

    • #69659
      Anonymous
      Participant

      I thought that LFO=Licence of FINAL Occupation, & FOL=FIRST Occupation Licence, & that there is a difference ❓
      Drakan/Maria – can you please enlighten me ❓

    • #69660
      Inez
      Participant

      Just to expand on Claires reply, in the past after a building was completed the developer would go to the town hall for the final approval – then an LFO would be issued resulting in the legal connection of services.

      If the town hall inspector didnt get around to inspecting the finished site, then not to hold things up, after 3 months and auctomatic granting of the LFO was given and the services connected

      Also if the inspector went around and most of the site was ok but some small issues outstanding, then the LFO is granted PENDING completion of the small issues, but isnt actually given until the issues resolved and the site reviewed.

      In both instances of the above banks would lend mortgages, but now because no-one can be sure if there is an LFO or not unless it actually does exist, everyone is panicking and the Spainsh are playing stupid political volleys, hindering any chance of buying and selling here.

      This problem is all over Spain with regalar articles in various Spainsh posts – and wait until it hits Bulgaria and the like!

      UK in the 80s and 90s was no better!!! 😯

    • #69664
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Hi Suzanne,

      LFO is licence of First occupation. In Spanish, it is (here goes)

      Licencia de Primera Occupacion,…I’ll stand corrected on this if my Spanish is wrong! de could be in the wrong place.:?

    • #69666
      Inez
      Participant

      No that is the correct translation. Licence of First Occupation.

    • #69678
      Anonymous
      Participant

      I think you’ll find that the correct spelling is “Licencia de Primera Ocupación”

      Good day!

    • #69714
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Who says that Green Hills’ Building Licence was not for apartments? Where has anyone seen that?

      Good day!

    • #69715
      Anonymous
      Participant
    • #69716
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Laggen
      Thanks,I heard the same regarding Los Lagos and dont know if its right that they built a few to many.
      There are views the I think it called Alta Vista which is next to Los Lagos will be pulled down.
      Again like many on this forum we can only pass on information between each other and sometimes common views or opinions become facts
      The more information we can share can only help if we tread carefully

    • #69717
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Dorothy
      Thanks for the attachment and is for considertion to anyone that have purchased or have an interest in the area.
      It was a solicitor that did give me this information and as I have said she appears on the same level as Drakan
      Hates the corruption and what it has done to so many and will not be bullied by the big boys.

    • #69718
      Anonymous
      Participant

      @Why wrote:

      Who says that Green Hills’ Building Licence was not for apartments? Where has anyone seen that?

      Good day!

      Question 1: The Junta de Andalucia’s 1986 PGOU plan.
      Question 2: The Planning Department, Marbella Town Hall.

    • #69721
      Anonymous
      Participant

      A friend of mine bought an apartment in Green Hills and has shown me a copy of the original Building Licence and it clearly states that it is for apartments. It is also true, I am told, that according to the PGOU of 1986 the land was not intended for apartmetns. These are two different things. People should not get confused!

      Good day!

    • #69722
      Anonymous
      Participant

      The original building licence owned by Iberdrolla (Apex 2000) was only granted permission for 12 Townhouses.

      These are a few facts to help you understand why Eralia/MVG continued with the building:

      According to what Leo Cromstedt (Eralia + MVG Director) told Charlie in October 2005 the works in Green Hills were suspended twice (‘stop-start, stop-start’ to quote him).

      He said that the Junta asked to stop the works by going to the court. This was because the BL granted by the Marbella Town Hall was against the PGOU Plan of 1988. (There were about 209 licences that were contested in the courts by the Junta in the same period of time.2003-4)

      The PGOU Plan created in the early 90s by the local govt of Gil was never approved by the Junta of Andalucia (which is the higher governmental authority). It was created in total disrespect of all the legislation created in the mid 80s for the protection of the environment, nature reserves, more humane cities, leisure and recreation spaces for the inhabitants etc etc etc. Gil had in mind one thing only: how to make more money for himself! And so did the developers. (The famous so called ‘convenions’ between Town Halls and developers!)

      Whilst the suspension was on, the Marbella Town Hall (disregarding the suspension court order) was saying to Eralia ‘go ahead and we will sort it out with the Junta’ and Eralia continued building with an equal disregard to the suspension court order! Why not after all. They had developed selective hearing by then! Anyway, their only interest was to finish the development and get the money in. They knew all this and yet they chose to disregard the law. They knew that when they bought that land from Iberdrolla (APEX 2000), the original BL allowed for only 12 residences!!!

    • #69723
      Anonymous
      Participant

      @Why wrote:

      A friend of mine bought an apartment in Green Hills and has shown me a copy of the original Building Licence and it clearly states that it is for apartments.

      I’m afraid this building licence your friend has is not the ‘original’ one – it is one that was corruptly approved during the Mayor Gil era.

      And one mustn’t lose sight of who were the ‘corruptors’ of the corrupted in the Town Hall.
      All the millions of euros being discovered in the accounts (and under the beds!) of Town Hall officials etc. came from developers wanting building licences for areas they knew were designated for other purposes as per the Junta’s 1986 PGOU plan.

    • #69732
      Anonymous
      Participant

      With regards to the nature of this forum named DEMOLITION
      Can I put to the forum the following?
      Developments without an L.F.O or say the correct planning in Marbella
      Who would pay for any DEMOLITION.
      The developer, I don’t think so ?
      The bankrupt Marbella council that were involved in the mess from the start, I don’t think so ?
      The Banks, I don’t think so ?

      SO WHO ?

    • #69735
      Anonymous
      Participant

      I have found no prrof that the BL is not the original one. Please someone correct me if I am wrong but I think what happened is that the plot of land itself was intended for villas. Also found out that the work at Green Hills (the phase that has been built) was never stopped. Apparently there was a problem at the Town Hall where for some reason the files for both phases were mixed up. Again, please correct me if I am wrong.

      I am pretty sure that this must be the core of all trouble.

      Good day!

    • #69736
      Anonymous
      Participant

      You are correct as in my previous post about BL. The land was originally granted permission for Town houses at Green Hills not apartments, hence the buildings were deemed illegal. At no time was permission given to build apartment blocks.

      Are you a lawyer who has access to this info? If so, then that means all the lawyers working on the many cases in hand are wrong about the building licences. This also goes for the Legal dept at the Town Hall in Marbella and the articles written on the subject.

      If you have proof positive about the “mix up” and can proove it to everyone, including many people who use SPI then you can clear up the problem in one foul swoop. You could make many people happy. 😀

      We need the evidence though.

      If the files were mixed up does that mean the upper level at Green Hills should have been built and the lower level should not? 😉

Viewing 48 reply threads
  • The topic ‘Demolitions’ is closed to new replies.