Let's say that you are a property owner and that your property lies next to a main road. Between the garden of your property and the road, there is a public area which is grassed, i.e. it is garden-like. Generally speaking, it is understood where the boundaries of a property owner's land and therefore garden are. Understood, but sometimes ignored. And sometimes even given official sanction.
A complaint made by the Alternativa Party in Pollensa in respect of the fencing off of garden in Puerto Pollensa has led to a response from the Council of Mallorca's highways division. This in turn has provoked a response from the Alternativa that describes the highways division's decision as "surreal" and that leads it to suggest that any property owner with gardens as are described above can just grab a bit more garden if they so wish.
What this all refers to is the fact that the gardens of the Habitat Apartments in Puerto Pollensa have in effect been extended by taking in land next to the main road and then fencing it off. The highways division rejects any charge of appropriation of public land, as it says that it was sanctioned in order to safeguard the existing garden area and on grounds of security and preservation of the public area.
This latter part of the explanation is where the surrealism creeps in. The public areas may be being preserved, but they are no longer public areas as they have been fenced off and now form part of the Habitat gardens. It is a very curious piece of logic, and one that has given rise to the logic of the precedent; if public land can be incorporated into private land in such a way in this case, then why shouldn't other owners chance their arm and do something similar. The precedent having been set for main roads, what is there to stop the precedent being used as justification for properties alongside other types of road and for public space that isn't grassed but paved?
Does the fact that the land has been fenced off really matter? In one respect, it doesn't. Given the location, near to the roundabout into the Gotmar urbanisation and by the main road, this is not exactly a bit of land that people would consciously wish to "enjoy". There is some sense to the security and preservation argument, as it applies to the security of the apartments themselves, but it is, as ever, the principle that is at stake. Security or no security, preservation or no preservation, it is still public land (some of it at any rate) that is now behind a fence.
The Alternativa goes on to say that the decision is an insult to those property owners who do respect what is public land, but the trouble is, as has often been the case, there are plenty who do not or who, not necessarily through any fault of their own but because of the labyrinthine nature of regulations and demarcations, get caught out. The party is basically saying, though, that there is one rule for one and one rule for another.
Normally, examples of what may or may not be invasion of public land never make it into the public arena, but one did in September 2010. It had to do with a villa in Barcarès belonging to the minister for culture at Inca town hall. Green land next to the villa had been built on, i.e. a terrace and some steps had been created. Alcúdia town hall intended to issue a fine, the Costas Authority opened an investigation.
The Barcarès case, and as far as I am aware it has not been resolved, revolved around whether the land was green or not and around confrontations with kitesurfers who use the beach at Barcarès. The councillor didn't at the time admit to whether the land was her property or not, but she did suggest that Alcúdia town hall had never bothered to contact her before, implying that the case had all blown up because of problems with the surfers. So maybe she had a security defence.
In Barcarès though, the relevant authorities were different to those in the Habitat case, and it just goes to show how confusing the labyrinth of regulations and regulators can be; not the island council in this instance, but the local town hall and national government in the form of the Costas.
The invasion of the garden by the Habitat Apartments is unlikely to be reversed, despite the Alternativa's promise to pursue the matter further. But there is one final point, and that is that for some years there has been a proposal, not acted upon, to lay pipes for water supply to Puerto Pollensa that would go by the apartments. One rule for one and one rule for another, and one provision (more garden) for one and one lack of provision (water) for another.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
No comments:
Post a Comment