Yes Herc into Gibralter and only using the second half of the runway, by the time they have turned and dropped the ramp you walk into the Med.

Here's hoping Andy!

For RVA-4 townhouse owners and RVA-1 owners

I notice that RVA-4 townhouse owners have been given paths from their gate at the back of their property out to the communal swimming pool area. Can you let us know how you did this? Also, I have been asking the same question of Fadessa for RVA-1 and they are trying to wiggle out of providing the same service.

Any other RVA-1 owners who would like to get this done?

not all propeties have this - any of those houses on sloping sites RVA 4 M3 do not have them despite being on the original plan. RVA 4, M4 is a good example of those that do have them as the area is very gently sloping.

basically this is due to the orientation of the slope (around 1 in 3) and 'impractical' for Fadesa to do it. Had a moan a whinge about it at the time but to be honest we are not that bothered. Only something else to make secure or maintain.

we have not rejected the idea of adding a gate down the steep bank later on but this will be subject to the necessary Manzana and Town Hall permissions.

If you are on a level(ish) site then Fadesa should oblige.

Cheers,

Matt

Matt's absolutely right - RVA4 M4 and M6 have more direct access than the other manzanas due to the slope of the area and the positioning of the houses. We had a wander around RVA1 in October and the layout of the townhouses is very different to RVA4. A lot more variation in height levels, but also the addition of play areas and seating areas.

Had me worried there, getting my RVA's mixed up! We had originally bought on RVA1 M3 and had been told we would be able to put a gate in but have a six foot wall at the back of a sunken garden so no chance of a gate, a path would not be of much use.

we were also told we had a 6ft drop but in reality its only 2/3ft, we're putting steps in and a gate, for some of the houses the land at the back is fairly flat and there's no reason not to have a path, given that most people will have kids who want to go from the rear garden straight out to the pool (and in/out many times during the day!) i think that if people want it and its viable, there's no reason not to. Especially when its been done on other parts of esuri.

Don`t forget to ask the presidents permission and get the relevant licences etc from the council as it will not only jeopardize you but also anyone on the urbanization trying to get their habitation licence if you do not.

RVA4 M6 have individual gates from the houses to the pool due to land being reasonably level compared to other manzana's . But only path is one that runs between entrance and exit gates to the manzana.There are no individual paths from house gates to pool area.

Hi JDR, Can you confirm what the licence is: I was told by Fadesa that as a gate was on my original plan all I needed to do was get permission from the President of the Manzana, in my case Manzana 5. I obviusly had to pay for both the steps and the gate myself even though on my original plan the gate was shown. A number of other houses have done the same.

Spain has strange building laws, you are supposed to get a small works licence even if you redecorate. ;-)
As long as it is on the original plan then it will be ok.
It`s only when people add things themselves that are not on plans the problem starts as it changes the planning permission for the whole urbo.
This has been known to delay other people on some urbanizations getting habitation certificates until it has been resolved, one place they had to fill a swimming pool in. ouch

Hi Dave Smith,

I think you will find that what you say is true. The original plans did include rear paths to the swimming pool and as such would be approved inter alia with all other aspects of the external works and indeed will have been costed in by Fadesa and the proportionate planning fee paid by Fadesa.

Indeed I think you could reasonably expect the provision to be made by Fadesa since they sold you the property on the premise that it would be there. Consumer Law is on your side here and if you have the time and inclination I am sure you would be supported by the consumer department at the Town Hall.

Of course a lot of Fadesa's external works were drawn as if the whole area was billiard table flat and some paths and gates would be just to dangerous to provide so Fadesa took the easy and cheap route and abandoned them all quite early on. This has all been discussed before about 18mths - 2yrs ago and some paths and gates were installed then and this maybe what you now see as established openings. Don't give up!

Regards,

John.

Thanks, hopefully no issues then :-).

Hi John, I totally agree with you in regard to Fadesa taking the easy option out with the gates. As for trying to recoup the money, just wouldn't be worth all the hassle, got the lot done for under 750 e. I know this is letting Fadesa of the hook, but at least I can access the pool area without having to walk 100 mts every time I feel like a dip :-).

Hello Dave,
We have put a gate too. I was very angry because Fadesa didn't put it and because we had to pay for the gate if we wanted to have it.
My husband says that Fadesa has to lay it down that houses in which the gates weren't at ground level wouldn't be put by them, otherwise, everybody would ask for it even if they had to put a lot of stairs to access the gate, and where would be the limit?
Well, finally we put it and we also can access the pool directly
Regards,
marisol