The Costas’ Lots

The rumpus that has erupted regarding the new definition of limits under the demarcations of the law on the coasts (Ley de Costas – see previous 5 July: Saltbreakers) has all the makings of a major conflict between the Balearic Government and the hoteliers of Alcúdia and Muro. As soon as one was aware of these new definitions, it didn’t take much to realise where all this could lead – conflict yes and possibly also the courts. To sum it all up, these new definitions encompass the salt lands and what is private or public land and go beyond the previous application to the beaches and distances from the shore line. The Costas authority has not so much moved the goal posts as erected a whole new goal and a penalty area. As reported by “The Diario”, the directors-general of Iberostar (with five hotels in Playa de Muro and one in Puerto Alcúdia) and Grupotel are not happy, the former hoping that the director responsible for demarcation will respect the “tourism sensitivity”. 

 

There may be some special pleading emanating from the hoteliers, but who, frankly, can blame them? If developments, both existing and future, are to become confused by interpretations of law, where do these all leave what is the single most important sector of the local economy, one largely created by the hoteliers? The logic of these interpretations could be that hotels have to go. That is highly unlikely to happen, but there could be ramifications of different sorts, such as modifications and constraints on development or renovation. Why, though, is the Costas authority apparently determined to create an issue that will have an unclear conclusion and to cause a confrontation? The authority would argue, legitimately, that it is acting within its remit to protect the environment and to right any errors of the past and to prevent future building errors. Fair enough. But it also, surely, has a wider responsibility within the framework of the government to act in the best interests of the economy – locally and island-wide. Joined-up government? Probably not. 

 

One needs to also consider that there has recently been a relaxation in respect of allowing hotels to undertake certain new developments – a relaxation intended to help boost the ailing construction industry. There is also governmental finance on hand to assist with this. Which department agreed this relaxation? The tourism ministry, not the environment ministry of which the Costas authority forms a part. There is a further twist to all this. The environment ministry, via the so-called “Decreto Grimalt”, has established changes to procedures in respect of some construction (it is the same “decreto” that has caused the fuss about bar noise). Initially, this law was going to permit building in tourist areas during the summer. It was the vocal criticism of the hoteliers that brought about a retraction. While it seems that there are forces pulling against each other within government, one also wonders at the timing of the latest intervention by the Costas a month or so after the passing of this “decreto” minus its provisions for summer building work. It might also be noted that the president of the association representing the hotel chains, which was a powerful voice against the summer building, is also the director-general of Iberostar.

 

There are some powerful figures on the hotel side, not least the boss of Iberostar, a company it should be remembered that has enjoyed number one status as the most profitable of Mallorcan businesses. One might argue that big business needs to be confronted sometimes, but in this instance one detects a sense of jobsworthing taking on powerful business with no sensible outcome. All the more curious then when one realises that the director responsible for demarcation at the Costas is a former tourism minister.

 

On a different note, though there may be some question marks as to the precise legal interpretations of the status of the land on which hotels have been constructed, could anyone seriously argue that the hotels of Playa de Muro constitute something that is environmentally unsympathetic? For the most part, the hotel stock in Playa de Muro is of a superior standard to many resorts. Aesthetically, the hotels are generally appealing. Not all, but many: the Iberostars, Grupotel’s Parc Natural, the Palace de Muro, the Viva Blue, La Dorada, and so on. The far more important issue regarding the resort, and its hotels, is securing its future as a thriving tourism location. The Costas’ intervention is unwelcome. 

 

I have had some words in the past against the hotel lobby, not least in respect of all-inclusive offers and the pressure to limit holiday lets, but on this one I am in complete agreement with them. It is the hotels that have created the resorts’ and the island’s wealth, not a government authority which seems hell-bent on acting against that wealth.  

 

 

The SPCC and the Ashes

I should just mention that one of my correspondents has asked why the Sa Pobla Cricket Club, through my good offices, has not been given space to offer its thoughts on the Ashes. I can report that the SPCC is giving 15-8 on 2-1 in favour of … the Australians! But …

 

“And Fred is coming in on from the Fred (cold in Catalan) End … and he’s got Ricardo Ponting pierna delante de, er, wicket.”

Saltbreakers

Albufera once stretched as far as the port area of Alcúdia. The remaining undeveloped wetlands near the port are those close to the horse roundabout. Albufera was created from the sea; its water is partly salt, the Lago Esperanza is one of the few saltwater lakes in Spain. The sea has influenced the geography, the landscape and the ecology of Puerto Alcúdia and elsewhere on the bay of Alcúdia – Playa de Muro and Can Picafort, for example. Albufera is essentially a lagoon, divorced from the sea by the formation of dunes, forest and dried-out areas of salt deposits (“salinas”). 

 

This is no idle lesson in geography. Take some words from the above – “the sea has influenced”, “dried-out areas of salt deposits”. Why take them? Well because they are fundamental to what is threatening to become a major legal issue. The law on the coasts, that law under which, for instance, the chiringuito in Puerto Alcúdia is deemed illegal and therefore to be demolished, applies not just to beaches and what may or may not be built on them or within a certain distance of the shore line, but also to land – public land – that is deemed to be influenced by the sea. And this brings us to the “salinas”. 

 

Some 1,400 “private fincas” in Puerto Alcúdia, reports “The Diario”, are potentially sitting on what is such dried salt land. Fincas, in this context, refer to plots of land, on which real estate has been built. This may all sound rather arcane, but being understood by few (a definition of arcane) could well lead to a legal minefield. Those who had not understood are likely to understand rather more clearly and are already being made to understand.

 

We have to track back a bit. The law on the coasts was actually enacted in 1988 but for all practical purposes it was hardly applied until 2004. It is now being applied with far more vigour. The law is a national one and was designed – in the late ’80s -to attempt to rectify the building mistakes of the preceding three decades of development – mistakes in terms of the effects on the environment and in terms of legality. There is a distinction, under this law, between property developed before and after its enactment. It has already been established that certain properties, seemingly built legally before 1988, are in fact on so-called public domain. Owners have been granted rights for up to 60 years but they are unable to sell the properties. Under the law they would be demolished at the end of this period. After 1988? Well that’s a different matter, and it is what has led to the horror stories of developments on the costas being flattened. 

 

But to come back to those “salinas”. The debate now centres on whether these were naturally or artificially created; if the latter then there is not a problem, if natural then there is. How on earth are they ever going to sort this out? Because of the geography in the bay area, it is only natural to conclude that much if not all of what is now Puerto Alcúdia and Playa de Muro is indeed on land that was influenced by the sea and in some way in the public domain, naturally created dried-out salt land or not. 1,400 fincas constitute a whole load of properties. 

 

The good news is that the director responsible for decisions on demarcation under the law seems to respect the fact that some of these fincas are of “cultivation” and generate “riches”, by which one presumes he is referring to hotels. On the other hand, there are fincas felt to be “unproductive” and “abandoned”. What is unproductive? Someone’s house? He, the director, is in discussion with various owners and the likes of the hotel assocation in Muro. 

 

Unlikely though it is that this will lead to orders for mass demolition, the fact that the discussions are being held emphasises how seriously the law is being taken. But to what end? That there may have been breaches, indeed have been, no-one really doubts. Yet to pursue this with the vigour that is being suggested in this instance can lead only to colossal legal wrangling. The very fact that the 1988 law was basically held in abeyance for some 16 years only goes to prove that Spanish land laws over decades have been a complete mess and usually disregarded, and that land rights were, in all likelihood, the subject of anything but the law. To now be invoking something as obscure as what may or may not be public domain dried-out salty land just adds to the mess.