Property alterations

Does anybody have any info on the legality of minor propery alterations on cda?  We have noticed on jardin 2 and i think jardin 4  a couple of residents have erected a permenant wooden awning with felt type roof, we love condado and would hate to see it change too much, just our view but in the words of  Prince Charles "a monstrous  carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend" comes to mind, has anyone any views on this?

Hi

I am on Jardin 2 and I know exactly which roof you are talking about...  It is some Spanish residents that erected the ........., I can't find a suitable word to describe it that can be written on here....... but anyway it is a blot on the landscape as far as I am concerned and it was erected illegally.  There are current talks going on at the moment about it but it may result in them being told to take it down.  What a horrible sight for the poor people who live in the apartment above!!!!  For those of you who haven't seen it, it is the end ground floor apartment and they have completely boarded across the top of the patio and painted it BLACK........!!!

If you visit RPM Website here you will find all the rules, regulations, Statutes level 1,2,3 and local rules etc also latest info on alterations and Licence applications to Council which basically says all alterations shutters cupboards washing machine enclosures etc have to be licenced with the council for a fee, they have been around the resort noting details of alterations.

Seems nothing is legal till its licenced and the roofs you talk about should not come in the legal rules

Owners are not allowed to enclose the fronts?

It is the Council who will challenge these additions and most of what they will approve will be in the asthetics rules.

The problem is the rules where published late and many owners are completely un aware of them, so have made alterations etc without consulting the Administrators etc many of these will be subject to discussions at Council level?

Those of us who have made alterations me included will now have to apply for a "Minor works licence" from the council complete the form, go to the tax office pay the tax then take papers to council town hall and register the work. Apparently if youlater sell and he modifications are not licenced it could jeapodise the sale.

All this info is on RPM site.

Mick

Jackie,

I think anyone who has taken a stroll through the Jardines knows of the structure mentioned in this post. I think it was built shortly after the nortorious 'cow shed' on one of the upper floor apartments. Ignorance of the rules can not be used as an excuse to decimate the aesthetics of the gardens. We all had some idea that changes had to be controlled and certainly the Spanish residents will have been more familiar with urbanisation rules. In the case of both these 'mistakes', the owners would be well advised to remove the monstrosity and improve community relations by being the first to provide fuel for a bonfire in time for November 5th (could call it Spanish appreceation of the traditional UK Guy Fawlks celebrations). 

Regards,

See also

Council Licence Required For Laundry Enclosures thread on this Forum

Ah, I wondered how long it would take before the 2nd cowshed got a mention.........

After returning recently from CdA and doing our usual evening 'walk-about', I had to smile at all the fairly obtrusive building and alteration work I saw.

From totally enclosing front patios and spectacular roofing arrangements to entirely new back gates/entrances and bricked up laundry areas.

I read with interest that the local town council have arranged a meeting AND SITE VISIT to CdA shortly to talk about what alterations will be allowed to stay. If the 1st 'cowshed' and all the protests that threw up is still standing, I don't think anyone will be asked to remove anything. Its simply a queston of how much and who you pay your bribe, (sorry retrospective planning application fee) to.

As I own a 1st floor appartment in Jardin 11, I was hoping to put in a cheeky application for a double garage with traditional dutch windmill on top...............I thought a few 50 Euro notes in the right shirt pocket should sort that out.

WW   

I have the answer, change my name to something spanish at https://secure.ukdps.co.uk/DeedPollAdult.html   Think I'd better get in quick before someone beats me to it, from now on call me JOSE LUIS HERNANDEZ DE ARCE.
 

Phil,  Opps Jose

we knew a family who built a shed on their roof in camposol, they were 'denunced' to the council and they were fined 10,000 euros and had to take two of the sides out to make it acceptable.

Be warned.

Barbara

OK, maybe the windmill is a bit over the top...........but I really would like the double garage to stay.

I will hazard a guess that all the alterations will be approved retrospectively but PW and some owners won't be happy.

WW

I think one problem to getting things removed might be that the community has to pay legal fees- thats my understanding anyway. We were told that people did have to remove things at La Torre- like black gatings as the rules defined only white and covers on Pergolas. But the booklet of rules and regs for CdA was only issued 12 months ago and should have been given to all prospective buyers- that said my father in law came and saw the show apartments which all had brightly coloured awnings and he was told that they woudnt be allowed by residents and that there were restrictions on enclosing the pergolas. So people were being told things verbally- might have depended if you wereshown around by PW or an agent.

I'd also argue that the Spanish will know PW are quite restrictive about what they will allow- but expect they'd be allowed to retain changes due to the delay in the rule book and the cost involved getting them to remove things. Other purchasers may have been ignorant of whats allowed - I suppose ignorance is no excuse but again the problem of enforcing removal wil be cost.

PW were very slow to deal with these issues in the onset

Does anyone know what is happening about those lights which aren't white? 

Hi Mike & Dawn

In answer to your question about the white lights. The meaning of white lights is the actual bulb, not the fitting so hence no red light district.

For me the bigger question is the one raised by Tony below.

Under Spainish community law all owners must be made aware of the rules of the communuty at the time of completion and must be given a copy of said rules which are then filed with their deeds.  No changes to the rules can then be made without a majority vore of the owners, these changes should then be legaly notarised and filed with the registry, along with a copy of the minutes of the owners meeting in which they were accepted. By law no rules can be applied retrospectively, so if an owner makes an alteration which is allowable under the rules in force at the time, if a new rule is brought in that would make that alteration illegal it would only apply from that date forward.

So, at the time of completion that only rules that were in place, that the owners were made aware, were those described in article 9 of the general article of association http://www.comunidadesrpm.com/en/documentos/ESTATUTOS_GENERALES_CONDADO_DE_ALHAMA_INGLES-_NIVEL_1.pdf

The Aesthetic Modifications document is RPM interpretation of those rules, the actual rules state :-

4. Also for aesthetic reasons and in accordance with the architectural design of each residential development on the complex, it is hereby prohibited, once the corresponding certificate of occupancy has been obtained, to close off balconies, porches, terraces and other open-air elements annexed to the residential property by the use of fixed installations and also by the use of opaque elements that prevent visibility from the exterior. Furthermore, the modification of the appearance, colour, covering or general aesthetics of the fronts of the residential buildings is strictly prohibited.
5. Clothes lines may not be fitted and washing or clothes in generalmay not be hung outside the buildings.

So the cow shed and other such structures are definately against the rules, but as for the lights? At a stretch it could be said that they fall under modification of the colour of the fronts of the building, but I would take that to mean that you cannot paint your property pink rather than just the use of a coloured light bulb. What concerns me more are the Level 2 and level 3 statue documents that seem to have appeared from no where, but are dated 31/10/2007, as these apply more stringent rules such as the ban on any type of telecomm's equipment etc.  ( This would prevent the installation of non PW wifi internet systems that others are suggesting ).  If these really were written in 2007 then they should of been disclosed to the owners at the time of completion, as they were not then their legality is questionable so would be interested in seeing what would happen if PW tried to enforce them?

Phil

Phil,

I think the main concern of residents is having to live alongside something that has an impact on THEIR standard of living. Those structures you mention actually affect the neighbouring properties and give the said gardens a 'shanty town' appearance. Like the articles of the association clearly state, these modifications are not allowed - retrospectively authorised or otherwise. I would expect the Presidents to join forces with Polaris and RPM to ensure that the aesthetics of the Condado developmet stay as they were intended to be. If this means some form of legal recourse in the way of solicitors letters etc to effect it, then so be it. It would be a drop in the ocean from the community charges.

The issue of the lights is much easier to overcome. I actually have lights that are a white shade contained in a stainless steel body. If needs be, we could simply remove the frames and spray paint white. Not something that is too hard to rectify.

Regards,

Will,

I completely agree with you.  As I have stated below, any alterations that have been made to property that are clearly against the articles of association as defined in article 9 of This document should be demolished or the owners made to alter them so that they do comply.  You cannot give 'retrospective' permission to something that was against the rules at the time it was constructed.  The point I was making is that new rules, legally voted upon at an offical owners meeting cannot be applied retrospectively.  i.e if at some point in the future Polaris World ( or the community ) deemed that no canopies were allowed it could not force those with existing canopies to remove them, as they were installed at a time when they complied with the rules.  Hope that makes sense?

Phil

Hi Phil,

Yes, complete sense. Knew exactly where you were coming from but maybe did not make that clear. Like you mention, these level 2 & level 3 statute documents seem to have been 'slipped in' via the back door so Polaris can protect their interests and desist healthy competition in the provision of services. Of course the legality of this can, and should be questioned.

Regards,

I know what I'm about to write might not be particularly popular but, I think  the info Phil talks about as dated 2007 was in existence for a long time just not formally available. Mind you being  available and being given out are still two different things-could PW say they exisited and merely needed to be asked for?.

When we went to view the site for the resort and did our two night stay in a hotel 'care' of Polaris we also had a tour of La Torre. Our expected PW representative had become unavailable and we went around with one of the managers- this was Feb 07, so some time before the Level 2 and Level 3 statute documents are dated . This manager was a mine of information and we asked numerous questions. In particular about satellite dishes and the internet as we were interested in having those services available, he was quite definate that outside suppliers would not be permitted and no dishes allowed anyway. He talked about standard acceptable practices across all Polaris Resorts  being very similar and the great need for uniformity. He mentioned the security grills being something PW didnt want on CdA as PW want to promote the idea of it being a secure resort. He said they would only be allowed on ground floor bathroom windows and would have to be white, he talked about white/cream awnings and not blocking in pergolas- stressing the requirement for uniformity with any side curtains and actually included sun umberella's in this fixation with white.  Although he didnt state a colour he did say all outside lighting fixtures would have to be the same colour- he didnt seem to mean the bulb but the fitment. On that point , for a long time we all thought PW would supply those anyway. He talked about fencing in the lower terraces and the requirement to mirror the style and colour of the fencing around the pools and that those apartments could also pave the grass area of the terrace if they wished but would have to use the same paving as already existed. He said the understairs of the groundfloor apartments could be blocked in but but it would have to be a white finish as would any coverings for the area for the washing machines. He said we could place barriers along adjoining walls on the upper terraces but they would have to be white and of a lattice design. He spoke about the proposed 1 bedroomed golf suite apartments and said that the ground floor apartments would not be permitted to block in the pergola in order to create another room. He talked about community living and how it should work and actually said he didnt like the term 'holiday resort' when applied to most PW resorts but preferred 'residential complexes' as he saw them developing that way in years to come.

There were many other bits and pieces he mentioned some of which I have forgotten, and some of which I've mentioned on here previously only to be shot down in flames, so hesitated to post these all again. In fact so many things/restrictions did he mention that we laughed about being caught up in an episode of 'The Prisoner'.

Doubt all of the above is of much help other than to clarify that our 'rules' aren't particularly newly minted.

Hi Jan,

The problem as I see it is that people got different information depending on who they spoke to.   Everything you say below is correct and reflects the situation we now find ourselves in, you were luckly in having a knowledgable representative on your initial visit .  

On a purely technical level, if these rules were in existance in 2007 then Polaris World were under a legal obligation to make prospective owners aware of them prior to completion and a copy should, by law, have been included in the infomation presented at the notaries for filing with the deeds at the land registry.  I guess we will never know if they were indeed written in 2007 ( if they were then, by law, they would need to have been registered at the time! ), or if they were a later addition.  

Personally I believe we are where we are and need to move on. 

But... 

If someone were to have fitted say, a Sat Dish on their roof, and if when asked to remove it they refused and if PW then took them to court.   I think it would be an interesting case, as after all, the law is built around technicalities.

Phil

To Ptann, Bilbo and Jann

...you are writing...

 level 3 status documents that seem to have appeared from no where, but are dated 21/10/2007, ( - in fact, it seems to be  31st  )   -as these apply more stringent rules such as the ban on any type of telecomm's equipment etc.  ( This would prevent the installation of non PW wifi internet systems that others are suggesting ).  ***

When I completed on june 23 , I received a  " LEVEL 1" document status  dated 29/05/2008 ! and only this one ( nothing about the 2 ones above, level 2 and 3....!) and in this  one NOTHING about   "the ban on any type of telecomm's equipment "

When I was at the Notaris, I asked to the seller  of Polaris if I could set a dish  "on my terrace" - he didn't know, and the other Polaris Representative said : on your terrace, why not ?

It was also  one of my  first  question when I was the first  time at Balsicas !

and when I 'm seeing all the dishes everywhere ( not only on the terraces, but at the 2nd or 3rd floor)  in the other areas " Torre golf, Riquelme or  other ones, I 'm asking why  can they  and not at Condado ?

Waiting your advice . thanks in advance!

Hi Jihem,

I believe my previous post answers your question.

Phil