'Entidad Urbanistica'

A number of CDS residents (including us) have discussed the merits of extending our terraces out to the edge of the area which forms the roof of the garage below.  One resident has already  done this (I think it is Bloque 13) and it  looks good.  Permission would be needed from the President of the respective community.  We feel that if enough of us request it then it could be a goer.

i think it would be of benefit to all ground floor apartments and i would extend if possible but i understand you may have to go through the planning process to get proper approval. i own in pm4 and i think its something all the communities should agree on so that some consistency of design is adhered to.

noddy

I have a ground floor on PM2 would support extending terrace-sun soon leaves the front of building and we could block off the drop over garage door-basically ball park estimate of cost? Difficulties getting everyone to agree?  people may be half way through selling? However in theory seems good idea

I have a ground floor apartment in PM2 with a precarious drop from the terrace to the ground below and feel that it would be in the communities interest from a health and safety point of view to allow owners to carry out this work. This work has already been tastefully completed by two owners, block 15 and block 25.

 

 

Having just come back after seeing the extension completed on portal 38 Bajo A the idea of occupying the garage hardstanding to the edge as a patio terrace is an excellent one. If the work is undertaken with a majority approval and built with continuity blending into the exiciting construction, then it can only be to the great benifit of all residents. The terrace over the carparks, although communal involves deviating off the public footpaths and crossing the landscaped (well it will be in time) areas to access these walkways. By removing public access to the carpark roof terraces it will also incrase security, by preventing people walking along these areas and nosing in the apartments.


This message was last edited by Nick Green on 7/27/2007.

This same idea occurred to me when I viewed the complex.  The public terrace area currently appears to be dead space.  In order to convert it you would require the consent of the community and also would need to submit a planning application.  If both succeed then the community fees applicable to the properties may need to be re-calculated due to the increase in size.  I assume that the owners that have already extended their terraces have done so without the required consent?  Overall I think it would be an excellent idea. 

on our last visit we got fed up with children running up and down the walkway and having a good old look in at us as they went past.  All apartments would benefit because children running up and down on the tiles is noisy. Also there is potential reduction in cleaning and maintenance costs of those areas.  The community would no longer be paying out for that.


This message was last edited by aandm on 7/27/2007.

I own in Block 15 and would love to do exactly this, but I am surprised that anyone would have already done this without permission.   The 'spare' tiled area/walkway above the garages outside the ground floor appartments is of no value to anyone except those in a ground floor appartment. 

Yeah great idea for those with a ground floor apartment, I assume that no one would object to us with the first floor apartments extending our balconies a little further out then also?

Come on guys let's get the complex sorted first before people start making changes which affect everyone, if you all start making changes which look different it could change the whole look of the complex and if it's not uniform would make it look awful.  You'll be telling us you want to stone clad it next.  Give us a break!


Myne

 

Dear PM2 Owners,

 Just to put everybody’s minds at rest, no one can make any changes or “land grab” any areas that is not already part of their contract/deeds. Anyone doing so will be requested by the Community Board of Directors to return the area to its previous state.

However, the committee has taken note of all the raised points and will investigate and publish a viable solution which will aim to satisfy and benefit all owners, not just those on the ground floor. This is obviously not a priority one issue and therefore delivery dates are currently not available. I will provide clarification as soon as this becomes available.

 Best regards

 Peter Lund, President PM2, CDS

I am not infavour of allowing this alteration and i suspect it will not be passed by the town hall as the development will nolonger meet the 1/3 building permission requirement set. It will only open the flod gates for other alterations to be made and before you know it we will have a hotch potch looking development and it will be devalues. Als i think those who have already mde thechanges should be forced to revert back ,They have taken it upon them selves to just take communal space that does not belong to them. We have all paid for communal space and it is sheer arrogance that a few just think they can go ahead and build on something that is not rightly their to take.!   

There is a value to this land and it is not anyone right to just build and take chunks of it even if it is just the other side of thier terrace .  Perhaps they would like to buy it from the community of owners that rightly own it  -  Would you ever consider just building and claiming such land in the UK ona new \development. Those who have already done this have taken what does not belong to them .Would you let you neightbour in the UK do this. This has to be stopped immediately.  It is outrageous.    

   

i own ground floor facing gardens and i agree that this is community land and shouldnt be "claimed" by any individual.

if everybody did their "own"thing it could look a mess. however i think it is a shame that this tiled area isgoing to be "a no mans land". it would be good to hear any reasonble suggestions on how this space could be utilised by the whole community? as i am sure there will be alot of owners who have seen what a couple have done and follow suit.

noddy

I own a ground floor end block apartment facing the road unfortunately and though I agree that one should just not take the area in front of the veranda, I do think this would make our place much more secure.  Also as someone has already suggested, it would stop children running up and down this pathway for a start because heaven forbid if one of them fell off the end of ours they could seriously damage themselves as it is absolutely treacherous! - Who would be liable in such a case?  I have seen the balconies already extended and don't think they look at all out of place.  I don't think anyone expects something for nothing and these people probably think ike we do - why on earth were they put there in the first place?

Just forgot to add that people above the ground floor obviously don't have the same problems security wise and they have such an awful lot of space up there. OK so you paid extra for that luxury but as I said - people don't expect this for nothing I don't think and if some agreement could be made with regard to cost etc for this very slight extension, I for  one would be very interested. 

I totally disagree with it. Before anything is done the town hall needs to be consulted and I certainly will be bringing this too thier attention to halt a sudden building epidemic on the terraces with out permissions.

The apartment were priced as such  greound floor is always cheapest and that is the reason why. This is communal land and unless everyone in the community agrees it cannot be allowed to happen. Those who have already done the alternation without permission should be made by the presidents to revert the building back this will also deter others from taking the law into thier own hands. A health and safety study needs to be regularily conducted of the whole site. It was passed as habital by the townhall and areas considered unsafe accourding to the town hall had fences erected. If children are running along the balconies then I suggest signage is erected asking other to repect the privacy of ground floor owners. It remains a 3ft terrace wall will not affect security on the ground floor. It is was it is a ground floor apartment which has always been ideal for breakins  The deterrant will be secure locks and window bars and onsite security , not a 3ft terrace wall that an 8year old could jump over so it is a poor excuse.

This land belongs to the community not the ground floor owners.

  

Bigrocks / Brutus is correct about the legal side of this argument - the Law of Horizontal Property states that any extension or building alteration has to have unanimous agreement by the relevant community at the AGM. This obviously being in addition to Town Hall permission. Whilst we may or may not agree on the usefulness of these bits of communal terrace, there must be a reason why they were put there. The garage vents are underneath them aren't they?

In the meantime, anyone who has effectively stolen this land from the community should be forced to put it back to it's original state as a matter of urgency, in my opinion.  If enough people want the matter to be considered by the community, then it should be dealt with in the correct order, with the relevant research, etc.

i assume that the area in question is communal and hence like the gardens should be to the benefit of all owners. obviously gf owners have easy direct access and i am sure many will lift sun loungers over the rails, i dont know whether this breaches any of the rules of the community.however i agree with previous postings that we must all addrress the bigger picture and get all communities up and running and gardens sorted.i for one wouldnt want to do anything that is deemed unneighbourly and hope that some sensible plan can be agreed in the future.

noddy

With regard to the issue of extending ground floor terraces I am in
complete agreement that this must not be done without proper
permission. I also declare a specific interest as an owner of a ground
floor, but would like to make the following points in favour of
allowing extension of ground floor terraces to incorporate the tiled
'common' area above the garages.

There are benefits for both the ground floor owners and the whole
community as follows:

1) As the area in question is 'common' or 'belongs to the community'
it should be 'sold' to the ground floor owners.  If the price were,
say, €2,000 Euros per appartment (and assuming 200 ground floor
appartments) on the whole site this could potentially raise a very
large capital sum within the PM2 community which could be invested in
other priority areas for the benefit of the whole community.  These
priorities might include:
a) making the site more secure with perimeter fencing and lockable
gates
b) the gardens
c) our own tennis courts
d) reducing the size of the pools so that they do not need a lifeguard
(I read that they are currently 240 sq meters and need to be less than
200 sq meters if lifefuards are to be dispensed with).

Of course the question arises whether to allow this on an individual
apartment basis, on a blcok by block basis or only if there is unanimous agreement of all
ground floor owners of the entire PM2 community (this would probably
be impossible to obtain and gives up the opportunity of the community
raising any capital for investment elsewhere). Of these options, doing
it block by block may be best.

2) Allowing the ground floor owners to extend their terraces will
overcome the issues that the area above the garages is not safe due to
the drop at the front and at the sides.

3) Security is enhanced at least a little by hindering burglars from
walking up and down to check which apartments are likely targets for
valuables.  Obviously there is no benefit in preventing a break-in,
but the mere fact that burglars can not so easily walk up and down the
area is a least a small benefit.  This is obviously a benefit to
ground floor owners, but the more crime can be deterred at all is a
benefit to the whole community.

4) The benefits to ground floor owners are obvious - a bigger terrace;
and this is a benefit which has a considerable 'value' either in
living in the apartment, letting it out long or short term, or as
incremental value when eventually selling.  Hence, selling the area to
ground floor owners is a win-win situation: it allows ground floor
owners to obtain benefit and generates a capital sum for the community
as a whole to gain benefit.  The price needs to be attractive so that
ground floor owners take up the opportunity and yet the price also
needs to be realistic to generate decent funds for the community.

I would be grateful if the Community Board of Directors would consider
this seriously.

 

I do not agree that this should be allowed to go ahead, this is communal land and I thnk you will find that this will go against the 1/3 land criteria that was granted by the town hall to the development inthe 1st place.

It will then also make 1st floor apartments without roof terrace at a huge disadvantage and therefore the cost would need to be much higher than 2,000 euros. I believe it would make the 1st floor apartment vitalluy unsaleable incompetition. It has\to be done with the conset of the townhall which I do not th ink will be granted and all the owners. I think any 1st floor owners would realise that this would put then at a complete disadvantage in the sales areana and 2000 is no compensation in the loss in overall  salebility.

It has been deemed safe by townhall and measure put inplace where it was deemed hazardous.  I actually have never seen anyonewalking on the areas and  A ground floor apartment will always be deemed to at a higher risk of burglary an extended terrace will make no difference if the intent is there any way.

And lastly it will look hideous if a few do it and others don't. It really will look like a hotch potch of do as you like apartments that will ultimately devalue the whole development . If owners think they can afford 2000 euros to extend patios perhaps they can afford a few hundred euros per property to go towards garden securtiy improvement that would then be 527 units sharing the cost for the overall benefit of the whole development .

People need to concetrate on what is beneficial for the whole development not concentate on securing extra terrace which does not belong to the owners of the ground floor.  We do have a fantastic amount of land around the community and our efforts need to be channelled in to making it a 1st class development that others  will be envious of and so improve the reputation and value of the development overall for all . 

Just as a thought ,if the increased area of terrace is 12 mtrs (6m x 2m) , in relation to apartment sizes this is an increase of 20% to each ground floor apartment . As most 2 bedroom apartmentmeasure 64ms (we have had it officially measured )therefore the land is worth at least 20% of the apartment value. I vwould place any increase in terrace size at  least 20,000 euro and not 2,000. This is  not land to be given away ,it has a true value.

Those who have taken upon  themselves should be made to revert the terrace back immediately to their original state, those owners do not own that land.

This message was last edited by brutus on 8/22/2007.