Draft new tourism law legislative process
Update 11 April: The new law is still mired in Parliament. Today we’ve learned that the Canarian Socialist and nationalist groups will be presenting separate amendments to the Bill. The main reason for posting something of such little immediate import is to show the two main issues that are causing problems right now … and neither is concerned with the matters that would concern most readers here, I imagine. The first is the nature of the role of Cabildos and Ayuntamientos in modernisation plans, and the other is that of the categories permitted in newly created tourist establishments. There is also dispute over whether to include 4* establishments in the moratorium. There is still no sign of when this will be translated into law.
Update 7 February 2013: The moratorium will be, as I posted below last September, enshrined in law and “indefinite” once the new law comes into force. The legislation passed its first parliamentary process yesterday, with the total rejection of all opposition amendments. The opposition, and amendments, had argued that the new legislation was interventionist, and ignored completely island cabildos and local Ayuntamientos. All such arguments were dismissed. Environment and Regional Policy Minister Domingo Berriel said that this was going to be a permanent law to regulate the growth of the tourism sector, and that any problems in its imposition would, as was the case with any law, be dealt with in the normal course of events and in the normal manner. “Call this interventionist if you like”, said Sr Berriel, “but this strategic activity must be regulated”. Sr Berriel confirmed that the new law will act to correct residentialism, something that had been very negative for tourist areas. The word he uses is “reconducir”. I’ve translated “act to correct”, but could equally have used “redirect”. Once again it is far from clear what the government has in mind in this respect, which is of such great interest to those who own property of any type in tourist areas. I’ve posted previously on other measures in the bill, so won’t repeat them here, but it’s worth mentioning that Sr Berriel insisted that no more land would be classified for tourist use, “because there is enough available”. The bill now continues its way through Parliament, with the first hurdle cleared.
Original post 22 September 2012: The Canarian Government has sent the draft new tourism law, the Ley de Renovación y Modernización Turística de Canarias, to the Consultative Committee for consultation. I haven’t seen the full draft yet myself, but the Government has asked for a speedy response: as we know, the new law must be on the statute books in December at the latest because the touristic moratorium was extended in May only until the end of the year. What the Government has formally announced at this point, though, is that the law has as a primary objective the renovation and modernization of touristic urbanizations, areas and products; the diversification of its touristic offer; and authorizations in 2013 and 2014 for 5* hotels in Tenerife, Gran Canaria, Fuerteventura and Lanzarote. Once this period is over, new licences will be considered for establishments under 5* as long as they provide luxury places tied to renovation projects or replace obsolete beds. Construction team employment must significantly favour those who are registered as unemployed. Existing restrictions outside of these criteria are to be maintained indefinitely. Recognizing the criticism of this stance in some quarters, the Government says that whether people agree with this or not, this is the Government’s model and decision, and that the new law does away with the need to keep renewing the existing touristic moratorium which can now be considered to be enshrined in law. The fundamental objects of the legislation are:
- to manage and organize the growth of the touristic offer, tying this to quality improvement both in terms of renovation and new build
- to increase quality levels and the category of touristic establishments
- to avoid, and if appropriate, redirect the residentialisation of touristic areas
- to provide the Government with effective juridical mechanisms to incentivise and, as appropriate, ensure compliance with conservation, renovation and effective use requirements
- to restore the image of touristic areas
The new law envisages the possibility of touristic licences being awarded in Tenerife, Gran Canaria, Fuerteventura and Lanzarote only for:
- the renovation of existing touristic establishments
- the implementation of touristic places based on rights deriving from renovation projects
- hotels on approved urban non-touristic land (suelo urbano consolidado) and rural hotels
- hotels of a minimum 5* category
- non-hotel accommodation where planning rules expressly permit, or do not prohibit, it, with a minimum 5* category in respect of apartments
- specialist accommodation establishments
The new plans will complement, and in some cases replace, existing urban designations in order to make urban renovation more viable. They will also include new formats in touristic organization such as the condominium – based on the American model – and touristic villas, the latter being at least 500 metres from the coast, of a density of between 10 and 40 units per hectare depending on overall plot size, and which do not exceed 20% of the surface area concerned. In addition, a procedure is envisaged to regularize and authorize accommodation establishments which have existing licences from before Ley 19/2003, and which comply with all requirements necessary to be considered touristic establishments. With regard to incentives for renovation, the law includes measures for financial incentives and additional places – up to 50% for hotels and 25% for apartments, except where:
- the category will be lower than 3*
- the conversion is from a hotel to a non-hotel establishment
- when the conversion is from a non-hotel to a hotel establishment that does not convert the regimen of horizontal property to one of ordinary ownership or co-ownership
Hi janet..
Have you any idea what are they doing to try to attract tourists to THE CANARIES if anything
Regards Mike.
“going upmarket” … that’s their answer, not mine …
Best they address the cost of flights from the UK. For a flight in October, return to UK – £650 for two people. In December over £850.
Don’t see they can do too much about that really …. even if it’s a matter of subsidies, that’s a Madrid issue. Putting everything together doesn’t make for a good outlook, to me, but they’re convinced they’re doing the right thing.
Hello Janet
I own an apartment in Altamira Apartments but I do not rent it out. I believe the apartments have a tourist licence, the apartments are a mixture of individual owners, some who rent out. We also have time share & aparthotel run by the sole agent who appears to be connected to the original developer. I am therefore a bit concerned by what you have written regarding the consultation in particular the section “to avoid and if appropriate redirect the residentialisation of touristic areas” what does that mean? do they intend to force owners to rent out their properties and therefore be unable to use them for residential purposes.
I’m afraid I don’t know at this stage. I don’t even know if the actual draft would clarify, but it’s something I’ll be checking at a meeting I’ll be in the coming week.
Tenerife……”upmarket”……it’ll never happen! Just returned from a week at our apartment and apart from one very plush new bar – Papagayo Beach Club at Veronicas, I cannot see Tenerife ever being upmarket! Same old tatty tourist shops selling rubbish, shabby looking bars with furniture dating back to the 90′s, restaurants selling “3 course meals for less than 8 euros” (absolutely vile food in my experience in the past) & generally annoying touts so desparate to drag tourists in for 1 euro beers! They can fling up as many 5 star hotels as they like…..Tenerife is not and never will be an upmarket holiday destination! Get real stupid Government!
You’ve not been to El Duque then …. ?
Yes Janet I have on a few occasions. Always seems to be a bit lacking in any atmosphere to be honest. Yeah it’s nice but it’s not out of this world……and it’s only 30 mins walk from Las Americas. The problem is CHAVS will go to the more upmarket places anyway if they can afford it so it’s not really exclusive is it?
And also El Duque is just a tiny area in the south. There is no way that kind of place would be rolled out across all the southern resorts. Like the bar I mentioned at Veronicas……gorgeous place, white leather interiors, waitress service……yet on the same strip of bars that are tacky, loud and full of puking teenagers!
I wouldn’t mind betting that renovation of such areas is within the remit of this legislation: I’m thinking of phrases like “The new plans will complement, and in some cases replace, existing urban designations in order to make urban renovation more viable ” …
They would be more than happy, though, it seems to me, with Playa de las Américas being a 3* resort for those who want that sort of holiday, normally apartments, with the 5* hotels being dotted around the coast, as we’ve already seen in Guía de Isora.
There could hardly be a more sweeping government planned change in the vision for the canaries , than what the canary government are now proposing. Quite what any of this 5 star wishful thinking has to do with the real world of canary tourism or the level of canary unemployment I dont know.
What is needed now is for a alotca to reinvigorate its campaign and affected canary groups being involved to oppose this centralised imposed nightmare. This vision is a pie in the sky plan, hard to believe that this is the canary government that has really decided to do this.
Janet
You mention new formats for touristic villas. Would they come after the 2013/2014 5* authorisations or after that, as in your second paragraph?
Since I have a close interest in the villa licencing proposals I am keen to know the details. I am particularly concerned about the “at least 500 metres from the coast” part of what’s been said. Do you know if this is a magic figure and where has it come from?
(Needless to say, I’m about 450m from the coast, although it depends what “coast” actually means.)
I believe the villa regulations come into play immediately. The 500m is what is drafted as the limit based on existing measurements … these are clear for current planning rules, and your ayuntamiento will know where the limits are in your area.
I wish I could tell you more about the villa part of the legislation but I’ve told what I know up to know. Of course, the minute I know more I’ll post it.
Andrew, I don’t see it as a major change from what they’ve been saying for quite a while, as I’ve been reporting over that time. It is consolidating what they have repeatedly stressed is their vision and what they have repeatedly said they’re going to do. The restrictions they’re imposing already exist – they are just being codified into law. The Government is quite explicit: whether people agree with them or not, it’s their tourism model and their decision. I have been trying to tell people for some while that the changes they envisaged just weren’t going to happen.
Janet, sorry if I’m taking this down a route that is perhaps away from the proposals but…..
You say “The 500m is what is drafted as the limit based on existing measurements … these are clear for current planning rules, and your ayuntamiento will know where the limits are in your area.”.
Which current planning rules and which (current) limits are we talking about?
The entire Spanish coastline has a boundary that is officially “public”. It’s “Costas”. This is taken into account when any planning consent is given for “frontline” property. It varies between 30 and 100 metres, each area is different for a variety of reasons, so would need to be checked individually. But the idea of the “Costas boundary” is carved in stone. It is this boundary that will apply … and where it starts depends on your area.
So is that boundary 30 to 100m from the “waters edge” and the 500m would be from that boundary?
No, 500m is from the coast, wherever that’s designated in your area. You’ll be able to work out where the coast is from the 30/100m desgnation. It’s not 500 from the 30/100 …
yes janet agreed. I too have been aware that what the government has been doing is pretty much set in stone, and they were never going to be open to any sort of debate resulting in reform. The question is now is alotca going to campaign for reform? In my personal opinion that is what I would want to see happen, a campaign for legal private renting, in the touristic sites initially, free from sole agents. I accept that such a campaign would take time and money, but if the canary economy suffers due to the governments vision, then if an alternative strategy has been promoted the issue remains alive and change is possible.
I think I’ve got it! Where does the 500m number come from? It’s not mentioned in the press release. Was it stated at a press conference or something?
Yes, government presentation. My post was a combination of actual wording from the press release announcing that the draft had now gone to consultation, and the additional government presentation.
Andrew, Alotca is never going to campaign for private renting on residential complexes. Our lobbying for reform of the sole agency system, however, has been considerable but the legislation will not contain a free-for-all on touristic sites regardless of anything we might say or do, even if that was something the asociación agreed should be campaigned for!
For what it’s worth, the campaign doesn’t need to be “reinvigorated”. We have been campaigning all along. Our practice is to announce what we are going to do and then do it, rather than give 5-minute updates to reassure people we’re actually doing what we said we were going to do. If people like us can’t be assumed to be keeping their word then there really isn’t much hope. At some point in the near future we hope to hold another public meeting, so yes, the campaign continues.
Janel, sorry to keep pushing on this one. Do you know why a 500m minimum distance from the coast has been chosen and do you think there will be any room for manoeuvre on this in the forthcoming consultation? Was this aspect mentioned in any of the earlier discussions?
And, by the way, who makes up the Consultative Committee?
I strongly suspect the 500m limit was chosen so as to leave the whole coastal area for hotels and clearly touristic properties, and as such I imagine there will be no moving it. It, specifically, was never mentioned but it was implied simply because of the emphasis on the improvement of the “touristic aspect in coastal areas” …
THIS is the Consultative Cttee … HERE‘s the Wiki description of it.
On a slightly different note, just so it’s clear that the Canarians are very well aware of this issue, HERE is an article today from the press in which a local businessman gives his view of the draft tourism legislation. It’s worth reading, or running through Google translate.
If it stays at 500m then, along with every other private villa in my area, my villa has no chance. Excluded for one of the main reasons that guests want to stay there!
I agree with the businessman in the Canarias24Horas article but more so. He says each island is different and there should be two regions. I’ve always said that each of the 7 islands should have the power to make and control its own tourism policy.
I think the chances of any change in policy to allow private holiday renting in residential apartments is an emphatic ‘nil’ but these owners do (and more than likely still will) be able to long term rent as identified in the Civil Law.
My belief, as a member of alotca, is that one of the prime objectives was to try to get reform or regulation of the sole agency system – I will of course stand to be corrected by Janet if I am wrong on this.
It is interesting that the Government are saying that they will be introducing a ‘Condominium’ based on the American System for Touristic resorts – the American Model does allow for all manner of occupation including short, long term lets and residential occupation by the owner.
I am happy for alotca to keep nudging the tourismo as they are doing as any movement is a step forward!
Thanks Phillip, and yes, you’re right.
Maybe a silly question but does the prevention of our using and letting out our own properties in any way we choose not violate our human rights??
No. You have a constitutional right to your own private enjoyment of your own property – and Spain’s and the Canaries’ laws don’t violate that. As such, you’re not being treated “inhumanely”. As I’ve commented before, there is now a clear question about your constitutional right to defend yourself being violated, but that’s after being fined.
I also have a “silly question”. Sorry it’s so long…..
My municipality has a Plan General de Ordenación dated 2004. Our villa is in an area that is designated for tourist use. The area is in a wider urbanización and all of it is designated as tourist or open space and virtually all of it is within 500m of the coast. Almost all the properties were built before the date of the PGO and there is not much room for any new properties, except in the open spaces. In reality, the properties are a mixture of apartments, bungalows, villas, hotels, shops, restaurants and bars etc, with the non-hotel accommodation being a mix of residential and holiday lets, but not all “legally” so.
There is also a revision, with proposals, of the PGO dated 2009, “Adaptación a las Directrices de Ordenación General y del Turismo”, in which most of the urbanización is marked up as “suelo urbano consolidado” and as far as I can make out does not change the tourist designation. In fact it is quite clear in the documents that the ayuntamiento would prefer that the whole of this area be given over to tourist use while recognising that it currently includes residential. It appears that it proposes that new residential properties will only be allowed if their designation is mixed-use.
So, on the one hand the local ayuntamiento wants the area to be of a tourist nature while on the other the Gobierno de Canarias is specifically not allowing certain properties to be used for that purpose. How does that work?
I don’t know, is the honest answer. I would hope that the full law, when it’s available, will clarify. I’m sorry I can’t say at present.
Is this about these proposals or is it about something else?…..
http://www.lavozdelanzarote.com/article73196.html
That’s about a so-called future “Ley de armonización y la de recualificación turística”. The new law that has just gone to consultation is the “Ley de Renovación y Modernización Turística”. I don’t know whether they mean the same thing, but it would be strange if so that they have a completely different name for the law. There is nothing in the Government pages with that name that I can find.
was wondering why buy an apartment in tenerife if so unhappy craig, there are lots of lovely upmarket restaurants and shops yes there are some tatty ones but thats Tenerife has been for as long as i remember ??
It was an investment purchase and my partner wanted Tenerife purely because it seems to be the most popular of the canaries. We don’t plan on ever living there or anything. The point I was making that only small areas are upmarket. I prefer Gran Canaria.
The Government seems to turn a blind eye to
noisy bars which seem to get away with not adhering to the 12 o clock curfew, aggressive street sellers, (and I don’t mean all of them) people who invade your space to try to get you in to their restaurant or bar and then try to make a clever comment when you refuse, shops selling overpriced & faulty goods; I could go on but until this is sorted people will never see Tenerife as an upmarket destination. I would also add that a lot of the restaurants offering English breakfasts etc are Spanish owned and merely catering for the local market. I think it would be nice to see a few more offering Continental style breakfast. I think the Government are walking round with blinkers on. Unless you have always been upmarket then I think it will be very difficult to make it any different and anyway who really wants all upmarket? Every destination needs a mix of accommodation. To make Tenerife somewhere that people want to visit, all it needs is more policing. If rules are made then there should be enough people with authority to ensure that they are being adhered to. They are cutting down on the illegal letting but there are a lot more important issues to tackle. Phew, had to get that off my chest!
I agree with what you are saying catherine. I personally think that the illegal letting crackdown started as a knee jerk reaction in 2008. At that time the hotels were suffering declining occupancy due to the crissis and they srcreamed at the government to stop the illegal renters, they wanted those customers in their hotels. Now it seems the government does not want this type of customer at all , not even in hotels, they want 5 star up market customers in a 5 star up market resort. I think the reason for this is that the government is under the influence of the hotel lobby. The hotels can not make money anymore from the traditional working class mass tourist. The only way to get the footfall in competition with other lower cost emerging resorts, is to offer cheaper AI deals. The problem then is the hotels can not make any profit, they are being knocked down by the big tour groups in price, then the AI offering leaves them no returns or plain losses. Rather than leave this natural change to the markets to sort out, and the rise of private rented apartments internet advertised, was an up and coming trend in tourism before the crackdown began, the hotels have persuaded the government to go all out form a new 5 star model. The hotels resaoning for this is that they themselves can make money on that format. They are demanding of the government that what we have in fanabe and around the americas shopping plaza in PDLA is to be rolled out right accross the resorts.
What the government is going along with is a plan to more or less tear down the old shabby hotels and reconstruct on 5 star lines. They have not considered if this plan is actually the right one for the entire canarian population and economy, just what might be best for the narrow interest of the hotel lobby. Sadley the hotel lobby is very much in control and has the ability to influcnce the policy and mindset of the canarian government in these matters.
My husband commented last night on the number of hotels in the Thomas Cook brochure offering all inclusive only. Who wants this as their only choice? I certainly don’t. The Canaries have so much to offer in the way of fine dining. The renters are their best customers even when they self cater for some of their meals. They are still supporting the economy by buying food from the shops. We have had an apartment in Tenerife since 1985 and one of the main reasons we continue to visit Tenerife is the excellent choice of restaurants.Everybody needs a choice.
Well said Catherine! In just the 4 years we have had our apartment we have pumped plenty of money in the island by fully refurbishing the place & furnishing it with expensive items. And you’re right that even people who do self cater and make meals in their apartment they have to buy the food from somewhere. So what if we have maybe taken a few people off the hotels. I know for a fact that people who have used our place have tried some hotels in Tenerife then stayed in our place and would never consider a hotel again. I’ve just come back from my second trip to Gran Canaria and added to the 3 trips this year to Tenerife I can see how many businesses would be dead without self catering tourists. In fact if it wasn’t for the huge amount of gay tourists who visit Gran Canaria then Playa Del Ingles would be a ghost town!
As Craig says, there are loads of people who simply don’t like hotels, however plush they are (and I’ve stayed in horrible, soulless 5* places for work). In fact, I’d say that those who are prepared to pay more are less likely to want to be in hotels – they can afford to go to a different restaurant every night then home to a private apartment/villa with its own pool etc. They aren’t cattle, and couples without kids rarely want to make use of 5 swimming pools etc.
My son’s coming over soon and spending part of the time on another island: he can’t pay anything much but there’s no way he’d enjoy being in a herd, particularly not at an AI trough. He’s booking a little holiday apartment on a quiet complex with one pool and a bar/café/bike-hire/shop. It’ll probably be knocked down next year!
Just spotted this in LaProvincia, for Lanzarote. I am not sure what it means at all. Is it saying that it is going to allow residential complexes to become legally touristic if they pay a licence of 200,000 euros? Or is it saying that dormant touristic complexes will have to pay 200,000 euros to re-license, or is it something else entirely – answers on a postcard!
Yaiza City Council hopes to raise at least four million euros for the financial compensation to be paid by the dozen illegal tourist establishments to satisfy planning regulations of the new General Plan. The mayor of Yaiza, Gladys Acuna estimated yesterday that each establishment whose licenses are canceled for justice will have to pay an average of 200,000 euros in taxes to meet the new urban criteria contemplated in the Plan.
The General Plan has included an amendment to the hotels to increase up to 50% whenever the buildable areas and for ara not expand the number of beds which in practice allow illegal hotels regularized. Obtaining this increased buildability is subject, in respect of value capture and prior to or simultaneously with the granting of the necessary planning permission, the Ayuntamiento of Yaiza credit to 15% of urban use from increasing buildable parcel applicable to .
The drafters of the Plan yesterday defended the solution given for illegal hotels to understand that he was giving an output that is reflected in the philosophy of tourist modernization law of the Canary Islands. In fact, the authors believe that illegal hotels will have to spend about 35% of its surface to edificatoria areas. This situation will force many hotels to eliminate tourist beds.
A bit more research shows this relates to 22 hotels built illegally despite the moratorium. Planning permission was granted when it shouldn’t have been. Rather than pulling down all the hotels, looks like they are going to have to pay 200,000 to be legalised. So, a different issue – phew!
Until the crackdown on illegal letting I took bookings for a friend who owns an apartment in a sole agency complex. I have read so much on all sites that I have come to the stage that I really don’t know what is happening, particularly now there is to be new legislation. The apartment has been sitting empty and if the owner tried to sell it he would make a huge loss. Can anyone tell me in plain and simple terms if there is anything new happening on a sole agency complex in relation to owners letting privately and do you think the situation is going to get even worse than it is at present. I have been inundated with requests for bookings next year and so far have told everyone that the apartment cannot be let. Any info greatly appreciated.
Until the new law is passed, and clarified, it is not possible to be certain, but at present at least, you cannot take any bookings. They must go through the onsite sole agent. If not, the owner is at risk of a large fine, and so are you for operating as an illegal agent.
Thank you Janet for clarifying the situation, its just as I thought.
While what Janet says is correct (would not be be good to disagree after all this time] another situation exist on our complex where pre 1995 there was a hotel chain and 2 others doing private letting. This is still the case the hotel being the main licence holder and all apartments registered by them with the tourist board the 2 others are licenced to let on the complex and clean. All bookings however are put through the onsite management keys are picked up at reception this works the hotel are happy with it the inspectors seemed to be happy they just insisted that all apartments were registered no one as far as i know has been fined for raising the own bookings on our complex this seems to work legal or not and the way forward David
What is the Parliamentary process now then Janet? Can the Government just push through the draft wording unchanged and it becomes law, or is there some kind of vote?
I don’t know for sure, Petra, but I think they have the numbers to force this through. It still needs to be clarified by reglamento though, to describe and define the clauses, and there’s clearly quite a bit of work still to do on that. I don’t know the detailed procedure, nor the timescale, though evidently they have only given themselves until May.
It sounds to me like they will force it through and then tinker with it as it goes along and the inconsistencies and misinterpretations become apparent when things cannot be implemented. What a mess.
Hello Janet, I have just read your update and I note that you mention that the new law will act to correct residentialism, (correct or redirect it) Surely someone must have a clear idea of what they indend to do with the tourist apartment owners who only use their apartments for residential use? Was this issue raised at any time within their discussions?
I’ve posted all I know Ken. As I say, it is not clear what they mean and they seem in no hurry to clarify. As I posted, I know this is of great interest to everyone and as soon as I can offer anything clearer or more specific I will!
Janet, sorry for bothering you again, but I wondered if the government are actually aware of the many tourist apartment owners who are worried about loosing the right to use their apartment for residential purposes? It seems that if they were to bring in such a law, that it would be seen by many as being a retrospective law that is extremely unjust and inhumane.
Yes they are very aware. For all reports that Alotca is “doing nothing”, we have been very active in negotiations with the Government, including meeting the Canarian President himself. They know all the issues, and have moved slightly (we still don’t know exactly how much) on villas, but reject all other concerns out of hand. Negotiations continue, but we have to negotiate within the situation that we find.
For what it’s worth, however, we have firm and clear legal opinion that they cannot mean to evict people from living in their own tourist apartments, and that if they were by some chance to mean that, then it would be capable of challenge under the Spanish constitution.
Thanks Janet, this is very much appreciated.
I’m wondering if they are going to include something around restricting residential letting on tourist or ex-tourist complexes. This would encourage more people to let to tourists, while still allowing people to live in their own apartment. Just have to wait and see and hope for sanity and clarity.
If a Touristic Sole Agent is sitting on exactly 50% + 1 to make him legal and 1 person decides to remove their property from the agent and stop letting, how long would the agent have to make himself legal and what would happen if he couldn’t get the 1 property he needed ??
As things stand, I don’t think much would happen. I think they have quite a few agents registered who are no longer agents properly speaking, for one reason or another. Whether things are tightened up under the forthcoming legislation is another matter.
Thanks Janet, I was just wondering following a question on another forum.
You’re welcome … assuming you mean TF, John Parkes (Loaded) will have a more detailed idea than me, I would think.
Thanks for the update Janet. I am over in Fuerteventura at the moment, so haven’t been keeping up with events. Can’t say I am surprised that they are trying to schedule in more amendments – there just doesn’t seem to be much consensus, particularly around those two areas.