I find it hard to believe that people are going to have to borrow money in order to make the property they have bought in good faith and paid 7% IVA on legal. Who will this fine be paid to?

Hi Mourinho and all,

I have been following this thread with growing interest.

The situation in Chiclana appears to be not too different to a property developed on an un-adopted road in UK. The property will be legal in the sense that it has planning permission and connection to the services but will be disadvantaged because the road and services are not up to standard.

Whenever a local Authority makes a resolution to bring the facilities up to standard an outcry arises due to the cost of paving the road, installing proper drainage for foul and surface water, providing street lighting, under grounding water, gas, electricity,telephone and buying the bits and bobs of land to make all this possible. This falls heaviest on the elderly and they may be forced to taking a charge on their house to pay their share.

That the Spanish local authority should team up with a mortgage bank to offer low cost long term loans is not such a bad thing if by providing the proper infrastructure the houses can be Urbanised and therefore made "legal".

It also strikes me that anyone who bought a property in a semi legal area, and has the works done to gain a fully legalised property, stands to see a pretty good capital appreciation over the medium term.

Regards,

John.

Just to put the record straight.
Most new builds in Chiclana outside urbanized areas have been built without planning permission and are not connected to any services. Instead they rely on illegal water wells, septic tanks and a lot have a dodgy electric supply. I agree that urbinazation would be very beneficial to all these people but I cannot see how Chiclana town hall can accomplish this task with the workforce they have.

I do not know about Veguetas but I think you will find that a revolt against urbinazation is being staged by the residents of Bateria Colorado due to the cost of same.

Hi mitzepurr,

Just as happens in UK when adoptions proposals are made. Petitions to MP's, local ward councillors and county councillors and letters to the area newspaper about the fecklessness of the profligate local council. However that is the way the English Law is framed, designed to avoid the mass of ratepayers carrying the costs of making good the defects of a smaller number whose initial costs were lower since they did not have to pay for the infrastructure that is now being provided.

Regards,

John.

What the residents of Bateria Colarado are complaining about is that the council have allocated the work of urbinization to private contractors. They residents have told the council that they will do the urbinization them selves for a lot less money.

Hi mitzipurr,

That is exactly the arguement made by similar cases in UK. However if the road and infrastructure is to be adopted and maintained into the future by the council then the council reserve the right to set the layout standard and the specification for materials used.

If you then take that specification and put it out to tender to bonafide experienced highway contractors you find that the prices are of the same magnitude.

My concern within your statement would be the word "allocated". If it has not been tendered and just offered to the Highways Chairmans favourite contractor or placed as measured work on a "Term Contract" then you can guareentee that it will be expensive and have fat profit margins for the favoured contractor

Of course this should not happen because EU rules insist that public works should be put out to tender and the best VFM chosen.

Regards,

John.

The fine will be a retrospective planning consent fee , in the past the fine has been less than going through the right channels thus causing incentive to bypass planning , this recently changed when council stipulated fines for unauthorised building must be more than going the legal route . I can only echo Johns comments comparing it to English procedure .

Surely if your paying 100s of 000 £'s for a house you don't rely on good faith ? I don't what process you went thru , but we were told by our estate agent what was legal and not legal , at the initial pre contract contract we discovered the house had been extended without planning , as part of the contract of sale we made the sellers go thru the process of registering extra meterage , again we were told at the time of any urbanisation any un registered building would face a fine and we would have to pay for the urbanisation if and when it happend , we are in Pago and looking at present situation i reckon we've got another 10 years to wait at least .

I believe Veguetas is proposed because of an powerful individual who recently had a home built there , the loan scheme may be a result of revolt in B.C

Further it says today that 10000 houses have been built in Chiclana in the last 5 years, and that over the last 10 years the numbers have doubled , doesn't say what the make up of illegals is thou !