<EntPE>EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT</EntPE>
|
2004 |
|
2009 |
<Commission>Committee on Petitions</Commission>
<Date>27.3.2007</Date>
<TitreType>REPORT</TitreType>
<Titre>on the Fact-finding visit to
February 27 -
<Commission>Committee on Petitions</Commission>
<Depute>Marcin Libicki, Michael Cashman.</Depute>
Introduction.
The Petitions Committee remains concerned and deeply
troubled as a result of the persistent and long-standing denial of the
legitimate rights of many European citizens in
In a large number of documented cases town councils have concocted urban development plans less because of their real requirements related to population growth and tourism, more because of what often appears as their greed and avarice. Hardly a day goes by without news of another mayor, or town councillor, who is investigated or charged concerning allegations of corruption related to urbanisation programmes. How many urbanising agents are related in one way or another to those controlling the municipalities which in turn bring them massive profit from land conversion deals and the transformation of rustic land to urban land; the transformation of property owners’ arbitrarily imposed costs into the urbaniser’s benefit?
What is spreading along the Spanish coastal region of the Mediterranean is not so much the programmed sustainable development of local communities – although such developments do exist; it is too often the spoliation of community and culture, the concretisation of the coastline, the destruction of the fragile flora and fauna and the massive enrichment of a small minority at the expense of the majority. Hillsides are invaded by a cancer of identikit dwellings not because they are needed but because they provide a profit for the urbaniser and the builder, for the architect and the lawyer.
During the last twenty years or so there has been a growing tendency for people to acquire property in the welcoming climate of the Spanish Mediterranean either to begin new lives or to spend their retirement years. Spanish people have also been leaving the cities to set up their homes in the beautiful rural areas. New land laws accompanied this trend purporting to provide for a rational development process. There has been an unprecedented economic bonanza in the building industry as rural property has been urbanised. How many owners of Spanish building companies are now to be found in the Forbes top one hundred or on the list of the world's wealthiest people?
Many chose to buy property in smaller village communities;
buying older rural dwellings left vacant and sold by former farming families in
order to restore them, dwellings which were acquired perfectly legally and
legitimately. Property rights once legally acquired should normally remain,
except perhaps in cases of justified and properly defined public interest when
proper compensation should be provided. However buildings constructed and
renovated on rural land are precisely those which are the most vulnerable to
the sort of housing developments generated by
As has been reported before, legitimate property owners have become the victims of the land grab, of laws such as the LRAU and now the LUV in Valencia, which oblige them to give up 10% of their land without compensation, ostensibly for very ill defined social purposes, and then make an arbitrary financial charge to be paid in cash or kind for the new infrastructure decided upon by the property developer without consultation of those who own the land.
The local authority in some cases even claim to be unaware of the detail of the proposed developments which are to be built on land the councils have designated for urbanisation and which will drive roads through peoples’ rural homes or build new homes in peoples' back gardens. They may in some cases do no more than provide the proverbial rubber stamp. Moreover, many victims may not even be aware that their homes are jeopardised until the earth movers arrive. Victims of the land grab are counted in tens of thousands.
Village residents suddenly find that the size and population of their rural community is suddenly to be multiplied out of all proportion as a result of the ambitions of small-time mayors attracted by the siren calls of property developers. But they will not be receiving any real compensation for their troubles, or their investment. The developers will. The impact upon the environment, the availability of water and energy supply, the requirements of the building programme itself in terms of long-term disruption are often no more than secondary considerations to those who stand to reap the rewards and who will never have to live in the urban developments they create, whether or not a golf course is added as the biggest of marketing attractions.
In addition, another worrying phenomenon has emerged as more
and more European citizens are buying property in good faith only to learn
that, having paid their lawyers, their estate agents and their builders, not to
mention their taxes, their homes are branded as illegal and that they have
become the victims of the ruthless town halls which knowingly approve new
construction on land which was not officially certified for that purpose. The
citizen becomes the culprit; the municipal authority a passive go-between, the
regional government has no responsibility and the national authorities claim
they cannot interfere in spite of EU law and Treaty obligations. This is the
Petitions.
The first petitions arrived early in 2003, and the most
widely supported – with over 15,000 signatures, was presented by a Valencian
citizens action group composed of land-grab victims, called Abusos Urbanisticos-No! (AUN). Many
other petitions were also submitted by local community associations sometimes
representing a group of expatriates from
Petitions have not stopped since. But, although the original
focus was, and indeed remains on the Valencian region, more petitions have been
reaching the Committee from other parts of
The Petitions Committee has approached this matter on the
understanding that its own responsibilities were relatively limited under the
Treaty, and that the autonomous regions of
Following the first fact-finding visit in 2004 a report was
prepared and approved by the Petitions Committee which included a number of
recommendations. After a second visit in 2005 a report was prepared by the
Committee and presented by its rapporteur, Mme Janelly Fourtou, to plenary
where, in December 2005 the attached resolution was approved by 550 members
against 45, with 25 abstentions. It had been hoped that this would have a
positive impact on the decision makers in
The Petitions Committee has nevertheless persisted on the basis that the fundamental rights of European citizens to their legitimately acquired property continued to be violated. In addition, the Committee had serious grounds to believe that specific European legislation for which the European Parliament, the Commission and Council have competence was not being respected by the Valencian government and the Spanish authorities. The European Commission agreed with this assessment as regards the EU Directives on Public Procurement for which an Article 226 infringement proceeding has been launched.
It seems highly probable, following the Committee’s
investigations, that other Directives are also not respected when large
urbanisation projects are decided upon. They include the Environmental Impact
Directives, the Water Framework Directive, the Waste Water Directive, the
Habitats Directive, and the Birds Directive and in many cases also the Money
Laundering Directive. All this is in addition to the provisions of the Charter
of Fundamental Rights and the EU Treaty itself insofar as, in Article 6, it
incorporates into EU law the provisions of the European Charter of Human Rights
for which redress may be sought at the European Court of Human Rights in
Last but not least, elected members of the European Parliament have a direct responsibility towards the European citizens who elected them to ensure that their rights are upheld within the EU wherever they may choose to live. When they are contacted specifically on the basis of petitions they have an additional duty under Article 194 of the treaty to act, and in doing so, they work with the national or regional authorities to try to find a solution to the serious concerns of citizens.
Parliament’s
recommendations until now.
As has been mentioned a number of recommendations were made by the Petitions Committee in July 2004 after the first fact-finding visit. Following a highly critical assessment of the situation the Committee wanted to explore more serious means of redress and possible compensation for victims of the Valencian land laws and their abuse by regional and municipal authorities, acting with the property developers. It also sought a moratorium on all new developments which did not meet EU norms or meet the criteria of sustainability.
It was however the European Parliament[1], “having regard for the rights and obligations of EU citizenship”, which voted the only recommendations which have been so far established on the basis of an institutional mandate and among these recommendations are to be found the following:
- Future regulations respect both in substance and in form the rights of property owners and that development projects carefully reflect the concerns for sustainable development, the environment and ecology that constitute fundamental policies of the Union;
- The inclusion in the new law of a clear definition of public interest which unambiguously prevents the possibility that the “public interest” justification ….could be used for the promotion of private, rather than public interests;
- The establishment of binding criteria for the calculation of compensation in cases of damages or losses on the basis of standards and principles recognised by the case-law of the ECJ and the ECHR;
- Fundamental review of the bases for selecting the development agent and of the procedure for awarding public contracts……;
- Measures to ensure that each land owner concerned by any development plan is informed individually, effectively and in good time of any plan and any aspect thereof which might affect his or her property and fundamental rights..;
- Claims offices should be set up under the responsibility of the local authorities and the Valencian Regional Government involving the regional ombudsman to provide assistance ..;
Meanwhile, urbanisation has continued unabated and in
Having considered the matter on a number of occasions in
2006, and in particular following the meeting of the Committee on
The 2007 fact-finding
visit.
In the face of obstruction, attempts to delay the visit and
attacks on the integrity of the members of the delegation which took place from
within the Parliament and from outside, the Bureau took a decision to authorise
the mission to visit
Having also received petitions from
Having met with some of the EU Member State diplomatic
representatives in
The delegation sincerely regrets that a meeting at national
level was not agreed as an official request was sent well in advance through
the Spanish Permanent Representation in
Andalucía.
Although the day of the visit coincided with the Andalucian
feast day and public holiday, representatives of the regional government in the
The authorities informed the delegation about their
objectives for the orderly, sustainable and planned development of their region
which allows the local authorities to provide proper services for local
communities. They admitted and recognised that a number of municipal
authorities had acted wrongly and in some cases, such as in
Responding to questions about the regular application of land laws in the context of urbanisation programmes they insisted that municipal authorities enjoyed a considerable level of autonomy but were under an obligation to act within certain guidelines regarding the size and extent of developments. Sustainable development they reiterated was the first priority of land use planning. They also indicated that not all local authorities used the urbanising agent and that the Valencian rules were not applicable to Andalucía. A group of local landowners could combine their resources to jointly develop their own land rather than invite an urbaniser in to do the job, the delegation was told. When the local authority decides that development is necessary in the public interest then an urbaniser is normally used and he is chosen following a public invitation to tender, published in the Official Journal of the EU, according to Andalucian law. An urbaniser was not a person who was imposed upon owners of land.
Information regarding urbanisation projects were publicised and land owners affected were informed they said. Also notaries public and registrars must be recorded and registered with the Regional authorities in order to legitimately practice.
Reclassification of land from rural to building land (urbanisable) entails the owner in a cession of 10% of his land to the local authority for public use and the landowner must pay a proportion of the cost of new amenities. Again in response to questioning, it was claimed that the public interest must be defined according to the specific needs of each development bearing in mind environmental, economic and social constraints of each community involved.
The delegation was informed that all plans must be notified to the Regional Government for final approval and plans can be challenged if they are not in conformity with the principles of the regional law. Citizens are able to appeal against planning decisions to the regional authority and a corps of inspectors has been established to investigate the implementation of urbanisation projects. The head of the Investigation Service was present for the discussion on this. Injunctions have been imposed on urbanisation plans which have not met with conservation criteria and heavy fines have been imposed upon property developers responsible for illegal developments; five major disciplinary cases are ongoing against local authorities for illegal housing activities.
Nevertheless, it was apparent that in spite of the safeguards, abuses have occurred and a number of urbanisation programmes were, as has been said, under investigation. Two in particular were addressed by the delegation: the situation in Ronda, and in Albox and the Alamanzera valley. In the latter situation a tacit agreement between builders and the local authority led to the construction of several hundred illegal homes which were bought mostly by expatriates, through registered estate agents and lawyers, in good faith. Many of them are now under the threat of demolition. The Mayor is under investigation.
The delegation was informed by the regional authorities that the illegal status applies to the building and not to the land on which it is built. An illegally built house may be subject to demolition and the land restored to its original state. (An unfortunate comparison was attempted comparing the purchase of an illegal house with the purchase of an illegal car which the law confiscates.) Anyone who buys an illegal home in good faith can, it was said, take out a civil action in the courts against the seller or could try to obtain a criminal action for fraud. This can, it was admitted, take many years and be a very costly exercise.
However, it appears clear that those who have bought houses which are found to be illegal in good faith are, according to the regional government, not so much victims as equally responsible for what has happened.
There does not seem to be a proper recognition at the moment which is clear to the delegation of the extent of blame and responsibility which must be attached to the local authority, the builders who have made the profit, and the regional authority who was either ignorant of what was happening or which chose not to act to prevent such an occurrence. There is, in short, no sense of proper proportionality of guilt and no apparent procedure, outside of the courts, for resolving the problem in spite of the potential provided by the regional inspectorate to intervene.
It is of course true that no two cases of illegal building are identical and that there is also a difference between buildings which are illegally constructed in areas which are expressly and objectively forbidden because they are situated in special conservation areas, or designated flood-plains, and those built merely in non-designated areas but which do not constitute any other sort of obstruction. Whereas demolition is more likely for the former, retroactive authorisation and accommodation may be possible for the latter within a revised development plan. This may entail additional costs for the land owner but at least a rectification of the status of land or the building permits may be a possibility which will preserve his property.
Either way, given the scale of the problem which is developing, some sort of functioning administrative tribunal should be established to resolve such matters bearing in mind the true responsibilities of all parties. At the very least, the innocent victims of illegal housing should not have to shoulder all the consequences. It seems apparent in Albox, that residents in what are now identified as illegal housing there did not receive proper advice from the local authority, from surveyors or from local lawyers.
The
It is with some considerable justification that a delegation
from the Petitions Committee returned to
The contrast between the meeting which was finally agreed with the Valencian Government minister responsible, Esteban Gonzalez Pons, and the meetings which took place in several towns and villages with the locally affected population was enlightening.
There has also been an increase in the number of cases which have been initiated by investigating magistrates against corruption based upon urbanisation programmes implemented by town halls. The delegation visited, in that respect, Orihuela, Catral and the Torrevieja district. The mayor of Catral came out from the Town Hall to provide the delegation with some explanatory documents while its members were listening to petitioners’ complaints.
In October 2006 the Regional Authorities stripped Catral
town council of its urbanisation powers because of the building of 1270 illegal
homes next to the el Hondo natural
parkland. The crackdown appears to have been short-lived however as partially
built properties in the area were still being completed in spite of the ban.
The developers continue to build, and the houses are advertised for sale in the
The delegation visited the Rojales district, south of Alicante with one of the petitioners (250/2005) and observed extensive housing developments in El Rason and El Limonar where areas of Mediterranean pine forest had been cleared and only the roots were remaining as housing encroached all the way down to the lagoon area by the shore. The area known as the Parque Natural de las Lagunas de la Mata y Torrevieja was under intensive construction.
In San Miguel de Salinas the delegation was met by about one hundred local villagers who handed in another petition complaining about the destruction of their local environment, the lack of basic services and the contamination of their water supply about which they said the local and regional authorities had done nothing since they first complained two years ago. A German resident complained about old and broken asbestos piping which was still in use, and copper sulphate contamination in drinking water and a water treatment plant which was rat-infested and broken.
In Orihuela, the delegation was given presents of local oranges, lemons and grapefruit which, it was told were the last to be produced in the area around Los Almendros (1129/2003) before the developers moved in. Each owner in this district is being obliged to cede 60% of his land, according to the petitioners, and building will proceed in an area which has been designated a natural park. There was no public tender for the urbanisation work according to other residents in this area.
Also in this area, a new citizens’ group called Claro, introduced itself to the delegation and submitted a new petition alleging that the rights of European citizens to vote in the local elections had been violated by the authorities. Of 18,000 voter applications sent out to non Spanish EU residents in September, 11,000 had been returned in December. They claimed that two-thirds of voter application forms had just not been delivered because of inadequate postal services.
The meeting which was organised with the Regional Ombudsman, the Sindic de Greuges Sra Emilia Caballero, allowed members of the delegation to receive confirmation about many of the problems faced by local communities as they faced up to unwanted urbanisation schemes. She expressed particular concerns about the lack of social housing in the vast majority of urbanisation developments which led her to question the way in which authorities are able to define for themselves what is in the public interest. She was also critical of the lack of public involvement in the decisions taken by local town halls in many areas.
Travelling north from Alicante the delegation was unable to respect its agreement to meet with residents of Tibi and el Aljibe, and it recognises how sad and infuriating this was for the village which had prepared to receive the delegation in order to lend added weight to their claims against the massive urbanisation which threatens to destroy their local community. The delegation did receive the extensive documentation which they provided and which updates the Committee on the situation compared to when the village was visited in 2005.
In
Parcent, the delegation was welcomed by what seemed like the whole town and an
impromptu procession followed the members to the place where a public meeting
was organised, and people were able to express their fears for their
neighbourhood which faced a fourfold increase in its population and the
urbanisation of its hillsides and rural spaces. The President of the local
residents association of El Repla, where 1496 new houses are planned, described
“the catastrophic effect of building thousands of unwanted holiday homes,
devastating millions of square metres of precious and environmentally sensitive
countryside. All this had been planned without even the most basic social or environmental
impact study and without a proper scientific report on the adequacy of water
resources.” The residents complained
that no-one affected had yet received a single official letter or notice from
the town hall to explain the impact of the plans. The plans were rushed through
in the final days of the former LRAU on
In Parcent, three sectors have become subject of urbanisation projects and they all contain serious flaws and discrepancies, sufficient in fact for the courts to have stepped in to halt the development of the largest one, El Repla, for the time being. But beyond this lies the fact that a small town, whose 900 population is willing to accept and understand the need for a sustainable development plan for the area is totally unwilling to be submerged by an urbanisation project which foresees an increase of up to 10,000 population in the next decade.
Indeed, at the meeting in the town hall which the delegation had with the mayor who presented the plans, it was the developers themselves, one of whom is the brother of the Councillor for urban planning, who answered the detailed questions about the projected expansion of the town based upon a calculation of about four persons per projected household. During the past several years, much of the rural land in the valley had been bought up by the developers who stand to make a large profit from the reclassification, although it will be the fifty or so families who live on the hillsides who will shoulder a disproportionate amount of the costs should the project materialize.
In the village, emotions were very high as older men who had lived all their lives spoke about their fear for their community and the delegation was escorted under a throng of umbrellas along the narrow streets and back to the waiting bus.
At a public meeting organised in Benissa, in a packed hall the delegation heard from people from several towns and villages who were opposed to urbanisation projects. They included Tormos, Altea, Villajoiosa, Mutxamel, Alfaz, Val de Lagaurt, Tibi, Rabassa, Denia, Javea, Orxeta, Liber – el Collado, Orba and Gata de Gorgos. The nature of the complaints were similar and related to lack of water, no environmental impact assessment, problems related to the choice of the urbaniser and allegations of corruption, excessive contributions and arbitrary costs for new infrastructure, lack of information, problems with declarations of public utility but no subsequent social housing, little or no compensation and loss of legitimately bought land. The Mayor of Benissa spoke to say he was a victim, not of the land laws, but of allegations that he had misused his authority in approving the construction of his own country home which did not comply with planning law.
The meeting with the Valencian minister for Urbanisation,
Esteban Gonzalez Pons proved difficult to organise, it was only finalised
following a visit by his Chef de Cabinet to
At the last minute the meeting scenario was changed so that the business community, with whom arrangements had been made for a separate meeting, were finally included in the same meeting with the minister. This portrayed the minister, flanked on each side and supported by the presidents of the Valencia Tourist Board, Building promoters, Urbanisers, Estate Agents and Travel agents, all criticised the visit and defended the Valencian land laws and the activities of the construction industry. The meeting was therefore confrontational rather than constructive.
It was alleged that each delegation visit had cost the Valencian region two hundred million euros in lost tourism, that there were hidden interests behind the organisation of the visit, that the Bank of Spain was reported as having declared that one thousand million euros had also been lost in investment as a result of the Petitions Committee visits and that the petitions received were in fact bogus or a mere figment of the delegations’ imagination.
The delegation outlined the nature of the concerns of the Committee and explained that it had returned in the hope that many of the problems faced by local communities would have been resolved in cooperation with the authorities. It addressed the specific problem of illegal housing as distinct from the more general problems faced as a result of the extensive urbanisation programmes which were being implemented without due regard for the rights of small property owners or the environment.
The minister refused to acknowledge that there were any problems with the urbanisation programmes and if there were any, he maintained that they should be resolved through the courts. The only specific case he referred to was the illegal housing problem in Catral which the delegation had visited.
Representatives from the business community were also sharply critical of the visit but nevertheless welcomed the opportunity to meet with the delegation. It was explained that the building industry accounted for 25% of the region’s GDP and provided much employment and that any falling off of business would lead to more unemployment. The representative of the Federation of Real Estate businesses suggested that an expert committee could be set up to analyse complaints.
To conclude, the delegation said that while it appreciated the concerns expressed by the business community, the solution should also lay with them. It rejected the charges against its integrity which had been made without any justification or evidence. Compared to previous visits it appeared clearer than ever that the land law had been devised or at least interpreted primarily in the interests of the developers and urbanisers, and not with the legitimate rights of individual property owners in mind, nor the fragile social or ecological environment.
Following this meeting the members of the delegation
travelled to the
The first stop was in Mestrets.
This is a small coastal community where 42 houses, inhabited on a permanent basis, are to make way for a 6000 house development. The residents, many of whom have lived there all their lives, have all amenities already yet they are to be obliged to help pay for this extensive urbanisation where most will lose their homes. The local people demanded proper compensation for their properties and the right to be re-housed in similar circumstances if urbanisation was essential. Instead they had invariably been offered very little, often no more than a small apartment in a large block.
They had received no reply from the Valencian regional authorities and only the Sindic de Greuges had responded to and supported their concerns, they said.
The delegation then moved on towards Cabanes and the Marina d’Or development which consisted of a long line of ten story buildings along the beach (the Playa Torre la Sal) which were under construction. The petitioners claim that the current population of less than 3000 will be increased to 125000 during the holiday season. 24000 homes are planned altogether as well as three golf courses and a theme park – Mundo Ilusion. The apartments are adjacent to a natural reserve which contains a protected species of bird (aguilucho cenizo) and there has not been any approval concerning the guaranteed provision of water for the urban complex. A desalination plant is however envisaged which, according to the petitioners, will require EU funding.
At the public meeting in
In Peniscola, in the northern coastal area of the Valencian region, 3000 new dwellings are planned in an area which is designated as a national park. The local residents have tried to take the case to the court but, after two and a half years there is still no prospect of a hearing of the case. There has been no environmental impact assessment and the authorities are not concerned by the fact that it the area has been designated as part of a Natura 2000 specially protected area.
Other complaints were received from Alboraia, Valencia itself Parque y Jardin Jose M Orensa, Picassent, Villalonga, Alboraya, Albalat, the Hosptal of Virgen del Consuelo de Valencia ( where local residents are subject to toxic emissions from cobalt pumps and radio-active helium; public land given to a private company modified planning permission without any consideration to local community), and Albufera. Many people came along to the meeting to vent their frustration that they were being totally ignored by local authorities who listened only to the sirens of the urbanisers and developers.
Of the 540 municipalities which make up the Valencian Region it would appear that about 15 – 20 per cent, concentrated essentially in the coastal hinterland, have experienced serious problems resulting from extensive urbanisation, many involving allegations of corruption in recent years. Few municipal authorities have conducted urbanisation planning procedures in close association with, and the active involvement of the local community as has happened in Xabia for example.
It would seem to be the case therefore that weaknesses in the overly complex land law legislation are readily able to be exploited and the number of complaints generated by urbanisation programmes continue to rise. The regional authorities have an obligation to recognise this and honour the rights of small property owners and the environment and to do something about the grievances. There is no proof that they have yet come to terms with this except on a sporadic basis related to some illegal housing developments.
The fundamental rights of European citizens to their property are not recognised in the same way here as in other European countries and it is evident that there is a level of persistent abuse resulting from urbanisation which undermines claims that the region acts in full conformity with the EU Treaty. In addition, there is mounting evidence that not only are EU Directives not willingly applied, they are not even clearly transposed, for example, in the case of public procurement procedures.
The region of
The
Developers have been quick to grasp the opportunities that
this situation has created and town halls have been forced to rethink their
general land use planning to cover the next decades. Such developments have
brought with them, as in other parts of
The Petitions Committee has received petitions from a number
of localities north of
Fortunately the delegation was able to hold a meeting with
the minister responsible for urbanisation in the Madrid Regional Government,
Francisco Granados. However, the exchange of views was rather superficial, but
nevertheless useful in that it did allow the delegation to learn more about the
Region’s priorities and procedures regarding the environment and rights of
property owners to which the minister said he was personally committed.
Regarding the two municipalities to be visited he informed the delegation that
the plan for Torrelodones had been withdrawn for the moment and the plan for
Galapagar had yet to be finally approved. He also explained the procedures for
the appointment of urbanising agents which, he said, were based upon EU
Directives. In the Madrid Region he said compensation was paid to landowners
affected by urbanisation projects on the basis of the new reclassification,
unlike in
On arrival in Galapagar, the delegation met with the mayor
and several of members of the town council. The concerns of the delegation
based upon the petitions received regarding the development programmes were
expressed, notably regarding the Natura 2000 sites along the River Guaderrama
and the problem of waste water treatment. The Mayor gave a detailed explanation
of the project and identified all the key areas on a large map before outlining
the main stages of the procedure leading to the approval of the general plan.
He said the plan was now awaiting final approval from
He said that the local authority had chosen to proceed, if
approved, without the services of an urbaniser which was not considered to be
necessary. He said that full attention had been given to the environmental
impact assessment and that 16 separate sectoral reports had been produced
including on the potential impact of the regional
For a population of about 33,000 he considered that the proportion of objections was not surprising. He further commented upon the report of the Hydrological Board and on the fact that plans for a station and for additional high voltage power lines were not a municipal responsibility. He informed the delegation that almost ¾ of Galapagar was covered by conservation measures which would be respected. The proposed plan, he said accounted for 6900 new homes over he next fifteen years which was a sustainable number and not disproportionate in relation to the existing population.
The delegation was satisfied with the explanations given by the mayor which was in contrast to the approach adopted by the Valencian authorities with whom we met.
The visit to Torreledonos was most useful and informative but necessarily was of a lesser impact given that the proposed urbanisation which was to have established a golf course and some 1500 new dwellings in a special protected area had been withdrawn, though many feared it would be resurrected after the elections at the end of May.
The final public meeting of the mission was held in Galapagar and allowed the delegation to compare and contrast the explanations given by the mayor with the feelings expressed by a large number of the local inhabitants. Eighteen declarations were made which included some serious comments about developments in neighbouring areas such as El Escorial. The main focus of concern was the size of the programme and its impact on the local areas of outstanding natural beauty, on endangered bird species, the lack of proper water treatment facilities as well as the plan’s effect on the social fabric of the community.
Conclusions.
The application of land laws governing the rights of individuals over their legitimately acquired property remains problematic in several of the Spanish autonomous regions. Pressures to engage in massive urban development projects are more often than not promoted by the business community which has the most to gain from this lucrative activity. Town halls and regional governments respond in varying degrees, ranging from loyal commitment to their local community to passive and often active acceptance of the urbaniser’s plans, and their regional laws reflect these differences.
The local residents, whether Spanish or not, are the most affected by such urbanisation programmes and inevitably, under the circumstances, they have the most to lose. In too many cases they not only have the most to lose, they actually risk losing everything they have worked for and this is more common in the Valencian region than anywhere else. For it is in this region that the delegation from the Petitions Committee came up against the most arrogance and the least explanation for the urbanisation projects which have led to the destruction of many beautiful and fragile coastal areas. It is in this region that the majority of petitions received describe the disproportionate urban dreams of developers which amount to as many nightmares for the local people who as EU citizens and residents deserve much better.
This is not to deny that serious problems exist in many
other areas of
It may not be too long before the matter comes to the
attention of the European Court of Justice and a decision in that instance
which went against
The Petitions Committee is determined to continue to fulfil its modest responsibilities to the full under the Treaty in defence of the European citizen and provide, where justified, its firm and total support. There is no doubt in the view of this delegation that there is a manifest lack of respect for the fundamental rights concerning the property of European citizens in many parts of Spain and in particular in the Valencian Region. The European Parliament and the other EU institutions have a clear obligation to their citizens to ensure that this persistent violation of citizens' rights must stop. It is in everyone’s interest that this happens sooner rather than later.
Recommendations:
- Calls upon the Commission to fully take into account and assess the issues raised in this report, particularly as regards the possible infringement of EU law and basic rights and principles contained in the EU Treaty as they affect the citizens who have become the victims of extensive urbanisation;
- Calls upon the Spanish authorities and regional governments, in particular the Valencian Government, who are under obligation to respect and apply the provisions of the EU Treaty and EU laws, to recognise the individual’s legitimate right to his legally acquired property and to establish, in law, more precisely defined criteria regarding the application of Article 33 of the Spanish Constitution concerning the public interest, in order to prevent and forbid the abuse of peoples’ property rights by decisions of local and regional authorities;
- Calls into question the methods of designation and frequently excessive powers given in practice to urbanisers and property developers by certain local authorities at the expense of local communities and the citizens who have their homes and their legally acquired property there;
- Urges local authorities to consult their citizens and involve them in urban development projects in order to encourage acceptable and sustainable urban development where this is necessary, in the interest of local communities, not in the sole interest of the property developers, estate agents and other vested interests;
- Strongly condemns the covert practice of certain property developers to undermine by subterfuge the legitimate ownership of property by European citizens by interfering with the registration of land and calls upon local authorities to establish proper legal safeguards against this practice;
- Calls upon regional authorities to establish special administrative tribunals involving local ombudsmen, to which independent investigation services should report, which should have a power of arbitrage in relation to disputes concerning urbanisation projects, and which should be accessible free of charge to those directly affected by urbanisation programmes, including those who are victims of illegal property deals concerning unauthorised urban development;
- Considers that where compensation is required for loss of property, that this should be at proper rates which conform to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.
List of Petitions received during the Fact-finding visit:
–
Petition by Robert Alan Barlow (EN), on representation of an
association directly affected by "Plan Parcial el sector 2, ´tres amigos´</TITREPET
d"
–
Petition
by Abusos Ubbanisticos Almanzora No (EN), on housing "irregularities"
in the
–
Petition
by Asociacion de perjudicados CV-95 Orihuela-Costa (ES), on irregularities in
the drawn of the carriageway "CV-95 Orihuela-Costa".</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Carlos Javier Dura Alema (Amigos de Sierra Escalona) (ES), on the
inconvenience of the construction of 4000 dwellings in the heart of the PPNN
Sierra Esacalona</TITREPETI>.
–
Petition
by CLARO (partido para Orihuela-Costa) (ES and non-ES), on the infringement of
voting rights in the Orihuela municipality. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Gabriele Wesenauer-Wagner (), on the inconvenience of the PAU-25 in
Orihuela.</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by
–
Petition
by Joan Josep Cano i CanoAUTHORMSG# (ES), on the
irregularities in the "PAI Sector: ´la Serreta´de la Nucia-Alacant". </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Bengt Lomm (Scandinavian), on the change of the construction regulation in
the Scandinavian colony. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition by Eichenberger Ulrich and
Eichenberger-Brechbühler Monika (DE?), on ?</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Jesus Pons Vidal (Associació per la protecció mediambiental de l´Atzúbia)
(ES), on the possible construction of 1958 buildings with the consequent
problems that such an important increase in the population could entail. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Rosemary and Bob Johnson (EN?), on the urban development proposed in Tormos.</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by John F. Oakley (EN?), on the negotiations for the Balneario to be acquired
by a substantial property development company (with dossier). </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by La Cuta Owners´Association (ES), on the 298 illegal propierties in Lliber (
–
Petition
by Eckhard Ropohl F (?), on the
valencian land grab rules. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by David-Michael Sparkes and Rosita Carmen Sparkes (EN), on the urban plans in
Fleix de la Vall de Laguar.</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Gaspar Lloret Valenzuela (spokesperson of Municipal Socialist Group) (ES),
on the allegations against the PGOU in
–
Petition
by Eric Sanderson and Denise Sanderson (EN?), on the injustice they feel about
the money is requested from the Town Hall to construct in a part of their
land. </TITREPE
–
Petition
by "Abusos urbanísticos NO" (ES), on the massive urban development
invading the Maigmó an Ventós mountain ranges. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Fernando Ripoll Vidal (Administrator of Arenal Parcent SL) (ES), on the
adhesion of 15 owners affected by PAI "la Solana". </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Neighbor's Association "San
Miguel Arcángel" (ES),
on the massive urban development in San Miguel de
–
Petition
by "Platform against CV-95" and other 5 Associations (ES), on the
struggle against the carriageway CV-95. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Karl-Heinz un Annelie von der Brüggen (DE?), on ..</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Ignacio Montés Reig (attorney) (ES), on the intervention of an appeal
against the resolution of the Autonomic Secretary of Land and Environment. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Sebastián Marchante (Neighbor's
Association Casa Fus)
(ES), on the sewer system, street lighting and street tarmaced in the
"Casa Fus" urbanisation. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by neighbor´s of Mutxamel (ES), on the impossibility of develop the
urbanisation Molí Nou. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by "Nueva Cultura del Territorio" Association (EN/ES), on the
injustice regarding urban aspects in Aspe,
–
Petition
by Cecilia Navarro Ruiz, Antonio Puerto García (Citizens Meeting for a
sustainable Aspe) (ES), on the 4000 allegations against the PGOU in Aspe and
the location of an industrial state. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by AECU (European Association of Customers and users in general and specially
urbanism) (ES), on urban abuses against citizens in San Miguel de Salinas.</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Social and Charity Delegation Association (Orihuela Diocese) (ES), on a
leaflet explaining the moral position of the Diocese regarding the excessive
urban development. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Aby Pieter Eliander (NL), on the application for a single-family house in
Partida Roba de Hornos (belonging to the
–
Petition
by Stewart Muir, Joyce Robson (EN/ES), on the infringement of European
Directives concerning public participation in environmental matters and public
procurement. Intent to infringe European Directives concerning sustainable
water supply, the environmental Impact. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by "Compromís pel territori" (several associations) (ES), on the
explanation by means of a dossier of the new territorial politics asked for
Valencian region. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Paquita Mayor Ferrandiz (ES), on PGOU in Orxeta.</TITREPETI>
–
Petition by Antonio Ferrándiz González (ES), on the
PGOU in Tormos (Alicante).</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by "
–
Petition
by S.S. (DE), on the environmental destruction by constructions in the
´Atalayas´of Peníscola,
–
Petition
by Carlos Gómez Gil (platform of citizen initiative) (ES), on the inconvenience
of the "Plan Rabassa".</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Association "Salvem l´horta de Vera Alboraia" (save the orchard of
Vera) (ES), on the damage caused by a urban plan on the orchard of Vera. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by José Carles Ballester (ES), on the construction of a luxurious urbanisation
where there are occupied houses.
–
Petition
by
–
Petition
by Associations affected by PAIs in Cullera (ES), on several law breaks due to
two PAIs in Cullera (in Marenyet y Brosquil).</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Angeles Ferrando Juan (ES), on urban abuse in the approbation of PAI 7-A in
Villalonga (
–
Petition
by Julio Sanz García (ES), on the legal urban infraction in Alboraya (
–
Petition
by José Miguel Sanfeliu Bueno (Association of affected people by PAI "dels
Tarongers Golf Resort", Albalat dels Tarongers) (ES), on the PAI dels
Tarongers Golf Resort.</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Diego Gomez (Escola Valenciana) (ES), on the resolutions of the 4th Congress
of "Escola Valenciana".</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by "defenders of PPNN Albufera" (ES), on the PAI in the PPNN
Albufera, breaking European legislation.</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Agustín Antonio Sanmartín y González (and 6 signs) (ES), on the PGOU of
–
Petition
by Rosario Valls Comes (association Antics propietaris
–
Petition
by Juan Jose Salvador Tena (association of Benicàssim citizens) (ES), on the
construction of one golf course in a wetland.</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Jose Roger Dols (Neighbours association of Sant Joan del Riu Sec, 144
members) (ES), on the PAI 04-UE-T and 13-UE-R in
–
Petition
by neighbours associations "defenders of El Borseal" and
"neighbours of Ribera" (ES), on the PAIs "Torre la Sal" and
"
–
Petition
by .. (ES), on the construction of a golf course on a wetland in Benicàssim.</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Odorina Tena Llorens, Uwe Jöns, Kerstin Jöns, Manuel Sanmiguel Rubio,
Vicente Botella Tena (DE/ES), on the suggestion of different alternatives to
the current route of the connection between PDAI (technical alternative of
program for the development of composed interventions: Alternativa Ténica de
Programa para el Desarrollo de Actuación Integrada) and the road N-340.</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Neighbours Association "Partida Pitchell" and Neighbours
Association "Camí Vell", Peníscola (ES), on the PGOU in Peníscola
(Castellón, Spain).</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by affected parties by the eolic plan of the Valencian Community (EN), on the
eolic plan of the Valencian Community.</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by (ES), on the unhealthy situation of
the Hospital "Virgen del Consuelo" in
–
Petition
by Neighbours of Chamberí (a neighbourhood in
–
Petition
by Sierra Oeste desarrollo S.O.S.tenible (ES), on the excessive urban plans in
the West range in
–
Petition
by neighbour's associations of Moralzarzal, Torrelodones, Rascafría, Las Rozas,
Galapagar (ES), on the breaking of European legislation.</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by neighbours of Rascafría (ES), on the inform of the PGOU in Rascafría (
–
Petition
by Pablo Gonzáalez de Villaumbrosia García (ES), on the high-tension power
lines. </TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Ángel de Prada Solaesa in representation of "Association Escorial and
surroundings" (ES), on the opposition against the PGOU in El Escorial, San
Lorenzo del Escorial and Santa María de la Alameda (Madrid).</TITREPETI>
–
Petition
by Forest Rangers in
–
Petition
by Neighbour's association Galapagar (
–
Petition
by Ecologist association "Xoriguer" (ES), on the PGOU in
–
Petition
by Association "Save Mojácar and
Committee on Petitions
Secretariat
Draft Number 6.
Draft Programme
Delegation to
27 February - 3 March
(Authorisation of the
Bureau:
Members: Marcin LIBICKI (UEN,
Michael CASHMAN (
Secretariat: Mr David Lowe, Head of Secretariat
Mr Angel Ardaiz Egües, Secretary
Group Staff: Kjell SEVON (Greens)
Witold ZIOBRO (UEN)
Interpreters:
M. ROSS EN/ES
K. Mc
LAUGHLIN EN/ES
tel: 00 32 498 983 534. secretariat mission.
This visit is the third fact-finding mission dealing with
Spanish land law and urban development projects conducted by the Petitions
Committee. It was finally authorised by the Bureau of the European Parliament
on
The role of the European Parliament is naturally related to defending and promoting the rights of European citizens as defined under the EU Treaty and to ensuring the proper application of EU law by member states and autonomous regions. As a result it will not be investigating allegations of corruption which, though widely reported in relation to many urbanisation projects, falls under the full competence of the Spanish authorities themselves, who are indeed acting in many areas to combat such threats. The existing infringement procedure, brought by the European Commission against Spain concerning the public procurement procedures linked to urbanisation programmes in the Valencian region, as reported on by Parliament, is an important development which is to be welcomed, but which remains the responsibility of the European Commission alone.
A report on the Valencian Land Law, and allegations of abuse, which followed the second fact-finding visit, was adopted by the European Parliament in December 2005 by 550 for, 45 against and 25 abstentions.
There is no doubt that this is a most important issue for many European citizens who are attracted by all that Spain has to offer who need to be assured that their rights to own their own property and to move freely with their families within Europe's frontiers are fully and completely respected. The protection of the fragile environment particularly though not exclusively in coastal areas, access to water and more transparent development criteria, mentioned in the above report, are also of concern to us.
This mission will meet with petitioners, national, regional
and local authorities, and other interested parties in
The draft programme follows; it is subject to slight modification resulting from logistic constraints.
We shall prepare a report to the Petitions Committee and to the Bureau of the European Parliament summarising the findings of the visit and making recommendations.
Marcin Libicki. Michael Cashman.
Draft Programme
18h00 Meeting with national authorities regarding the new national framework legislation covering land use planning.
20h00 Meeting with EU Ambassadors for an exchange of views regarding current developments in relation to Land Law situation. (Hotel)
Overnight
08.30 Breakfast meeting;
- on arrival, at
12h15 Meeting with Andalucian Regional
Government Delegation in
14h-16h Visit to sites in the
18h00 Meetings in Orihuela. with local petitioners (CLARO and others)
19h15 Departure by
bus to
- arrival +/- 20.30hrs
Overnight
08.00 Breakfast Meeting (Hotel)
9h-11h00 Visit to areas south of
Return to
13h-14h Meeting
with the Sindic de Greuges -
c/Pascual Blasco No 1.
14h-17h30 Visit
to areas north of
-by bus
19-21h00 Meeting with petitioners and people affected by the Land laws.
Overnight Benissa: Casas de San Jaime.
9h00 Departure towards
11.30 Meeting with Architects, Lawyers
& Property Developers -
12.30 Meeting with Sr Gonzalez Pons; Valencian Minister for Urbanisation.
14.00 Depart for
15.30 Arrival in Benicassim and Oropesa and Mestrets - Petitioners
17.15 Meeting with Mayor of Oropesa
18.00 Return
to
19-21h Meeting with petitioners from the Valencian province.
Overnight
09.45 Meeting with petitioners in
Madrid EP Office (Paseo de la Castellana, 46, E-28046 Madrid).
(Mr Libicki:
flight back to
10h30 -18h00 Visit to sites in the
Overnight :
David LOWE
Head of Secretariat
Committee on Petitions
HOTELS:
·
Madrid: Hotel Gaudi
C/ Gran Vía, 9, (Madrid
Tel. (00-34) 915312222, Fax: (00-34) 915315469
·
Alicante: Hotel Meliá Alicante
Plaza Puerta del Mar, 3 Alicante,
SPAIN 03002
Tel:(34)965205000- Fax:(34)965204756-
E-mail:melia.alicante@solmelia.com
·
Benissa: Cases de San Jaume
Partida Paratella 44, 03720, Benissa/Alicante(Valencia)
Tel: (0034)966499075
Fax: (0034)966498208
·
Valencia: Beatriz Rey Don Jaime
Avenida de
Baleares 2, 46023
Tel: (0034) 96 3375030 Fax: (0034) 96 3371572