[Roddy]

Our Urbanisation (Costa Blanca) has a man-made lake running through it. It is a main feature of the Urbanisation. The Urbanisation and the lake were built in the 80s. Now the lake has developed a leak, and we are pumping water into the lake at a rate of knots to keep the water level to its normal level and to protect the fish.

The water is costly. And some owners have suggested that the lake be reduced in size, others have suggested that it is filled in entirely and made into a planted garden feature.

As this is such an important matter to many owners it will be discussed at the next AGM. Does anyone know what the voting rules would be about this? As the lake was an original feature of the original build, would 100% of the owners need to agree to its modification? Or 3/5 of the owners as suggested by one website I have come across?

Thank you.

[luzcadiz]

Have you looked at drilling some deep wells.   Possibly subject to local planning and the cost may be around 3-5,000 per pozo but once done  [and with a level sensor to keep to the required depth] you would not be paying for town water to keep it filled and as you mention the water is costly presumably you are using town water for your lawns and plants so would recoup your outlay by using the free well water.

An alternative if practical would be to divide the lake into smaller areas which could be very pretty and that would then isolate the area[s] affected by the leak which could then be filled or repaired.

As far as voting is concerned in our small communidad it is not one vote per person but the percentage each property represents of the whole [which in our case also reflects how much your service charge contribution is].

If there are some large villas and smaller townhouses  then this would make a big difference but a proxy vote should be allowed providing no outstanding arrears but you would need to be sure your proxy’s views reflected your own . . it would be necessary to see what your administrator says but normally for us it is a simple majority based on those present and the allowed absentee proxy votes.

[Yolanda P. – Ypama Abogados]

I’m afraid there is not a simple answer.

If the community decides to maintain the lake and repair it, one can defend that this is case of article 10.1.a) of the Horizontal Property Act (LPH), an agreement is not even necessary.

If the community decides to change the lake for something different, then there are three different solutions:

• Article 10.1.3 b LPH as alteration of the common elements of the community (estructura of fábrica del edificio): – 3/5 but need to be obtained in the GM (no via article 17.8 LPH).
• Article 17.3 LPH: installation of general interest for the community – 3/5 but can be obtained via article 17.8 LPH (whoever don’t vote against via letter in the next 30 days from GM is considered as a vote in favour of the agreement).
• Article 17.4 LPH as a work not required for the correct conservation of the community (adecuada conservación, habitabilidad, seguridad y accesibilidad del inmueble): 3/5 but need to be obtained in the GM (no via article 17.8 LPH). In this case, if the cost is over three monthly quotas, there is no obligation to pay the cost unless you vote in favour.

In order to decide which option apply, a more in depth knowledge of the community would be needed, as there might be circumstances that will help to decide which one is the correct one.

Can the lake be consider as of “general interest”? Can it be consider as the main feature of the Community’s image? Would its disappearance reduce the value of the houses? Is the cost of the repair so high as to think that it exceeds the normal maintenance of a common element?

Finally, has anyone checked in the Town Hall? It may happen that a change in the “ordenanzas” or in the Town Planning forces the community to decide in one direction.

[Author]

Posts