The revision of land-use planning (PGOU) of Marbella 2010, passed on the orders of Ministry of Housing of the Junta de Andalucía of 25th February and 7th May the same year, has been declared void with three judgments of the Supreme Court.
The purpose of this review was to normalize the situation of the more than 16,500 homes built during irregular, in most cases, government of former mayor Gil. This regularization was intended to be effected by the payment of financial compensation and contributions of soil, despite receiving numerous complaints from the beginning.
Despite the situation of urban exceptionality in Marbella, the Supreme Court has recognized the widespread urban illegality of the city, and has declared, for the reasons listed below, that the plan review should be annulled.
First, it does not fall within the scope of the power of modular approach, the legalization of the illegally built. The Supreme Court finds that the approval of a new urban approach is not enough, but the corresponding legalization must be issued by the High Court of Andalusia.
Secondly, it is considered a cause for invalidity the absence in the record of an Economic Sustainability Report, which should accompany the performances of new development, reform and renewal and endowment, which never took place.
On the other hand, neither was there a strategic environmental assessment, since the Environmental Impact on the record of preparing the land-use planning does not carry out an analysis of the different reasonable alternatives, nor the real prospect of involvement that could cause one or the other to the environment.
Moreover, the Supreme Court considers that “it is not in the hands of the planner to alter or deface the concept of unconsolidated urban land.” . This Unconsolidated Urban Land would be one in which you can build, but lacks the necessary provisions, either by not developing them or because the existing are not enough. Thus, a construction permit would not be enough to build, but it also would involve another set of requirements.
Nor is it legally possible for the planner to alter the legal mechanisms of responsibility for the failure of urban duties. The SC declares that the charges correspond to those currently listed as owners of the properties for which there has been pronouncement of illegality.
Likewise, no new features may require altering the balance of property rights and, at the same time depend on the modulation level of legalization by the scheduler itself. Therefore, the quantity of financial compensation that must have had been established for the General Plan should be aimed to normalizing the post penalization of the infringements.
A new opportunity for drafting and creation of a new management plan, which is expected to be made once and for all within the actual legality, is now open.