canary islands holiday rental law row

Holiday rental row erupts over Canary Islands planning law

Canary Islands parliament passes building licences law amid holiday rental row

The Canary Islands Parliament approved a new law this Wednesday designed to speed up the issuing of building licences, with votes in favour from the governing coalition (CC, PP, AHI and ASG), rejection from the PSOE and NC-bc, and an abstention from Vox. However, during its parliamentary processing, the bill has been transformed into what AHI’s Raúl Acosta described as a “shambles” of amendments on holiday rentals and other issues, a criticism echoed by NC and the PSOE.

The incorporation of amendments unrelated to the original purpose of the law – including those on holiday rentals, which have divided the governing pact, and others concerning the “green islands” (La Palma, La Gomera and El Hierro) or Teide National Park – has turned it into an “omnibus law,” according to PSOE representative Patricia Hernández.

How the new licensing system will work

The text on building licences allows, among other things, for professional associations and accredited urban planning bodies to issue technical reports with legal validity. The aim is to help local councils reduce waiting times for granting permits. Until now, it was council officials who carried out these reports, but the task now passes to external bodies.

According to the new law, the technical reports required to apply for a licence can be commissioned by a council or provided by the developer, who would then bear the cost. This cost cannot exceed the value of the planning fee for the project. Although the report will not be binding, it will have immediate legal effect, replacing the municipal report on points where it is favourable. It does not require ratification by council technicians and, in the event of disagreement or lack of coverage, the administration can complete the file.

Coalition splits over holiday rental amendment

The division within the government arose from a proposal by ASG to incorporate a compromise amendment, backed by the opposition PSOE, Nueva Canarias and Vox, which would have seen holiday rentals cease to be considered a “classified activity” and become “harmless” instead. This attempt did not succeed because a separate vote from the other coalition partners was approved instead.

Following the votes, the President of the Canary Islands, Fernando Clavijo, addressed the plenary session to acknowledge that the application of this law on the “green islands” had caused “anxiety and uncertainty.” He committed to ensuring the regional government regulates and plans this activity while taking into account the reality of each island.

As a result, the parliamentary debate focused more on holiday rentals than on the original aim of the decree law, which was validated a year ago and processed as a bill. That original purpose was simply to allow technical reports for building homes to be issued by professional bodies rather than necessarily by council technicians – something governing parties say speeds up bureaucracy and the opposition says privatises planning control.

ASG defends deregulation for small owners

ASG’s MP Jesús Ramos Chinea argued that holiday rentals have no impact on the residential rental market and called for dialogue to guarantee legal certainty for small property owners. He defended the amendment submitted by his group to have holiday lettings considered a “harmless” rather than “classified” activity, provided they take place in detached single-family homes or small buildings with a single owner that generate no environmental impact or noise disturbance.

He argued for the need to adapt legislation to the archipelago’s territorial diversity, with special attention to the particularities of the “green islands” and rural areas of the island capitals. “Holiday rentals do not influence the residential market in any way,” Ramos said, defending his amendment to declare them a harmless activity, noting that the Canary Islands are very diverse and have specific features in tourism models, such as detached single-family homes or apartment blocks with a single owner.

It was a separate vote by CC that changed that classification, much to ASG’s astonishment, prompting it to file a formal complaint last week. Nevertheless, Ramos guaranteed his party’s support for and loyalty to the coalition pact despite CC’s vote removing the amendment from the commission’s report.

Criticism from across the political spectrum

Raúl Acosta of AHI suggested that this “shambles” probably began with the processing of the holiday rental law, leading to amendments being introduced into this other bill in an attempt to fix it. “We have the right regulating the economic sector of holiday rentals and the left calling for deregulation,” Acosta lamented.

The deputy from El Hierro said he did not care whether it was called a “classified activity” or a “harmless activity,” because what mattered to him was that the requirements established for El Hierro were achievable and did not put 70 per cent of the island’s accommodation offering at risk. He also accused Nueva Canarias of vetoing a last-minute amendment that directly affects El Hierro and La Gomera, which aimed to provide legal certainty in the application of the 2019 Green Islands Act.

Nueva Canarias MP Esther González recalled that the bill was originally intended to speed up building licences, but the groups supporting the government introduced changes aimed at holiday rentals. She said her group had tried to negotiate the withdrawal of last-minute amendments not yet included in the text, and both Nueva Canarias and ASG did so, but PP, CC and AHI refused and tried to impose their criteria, which is why they had to be vetoed.

PSOE MP Patricia Hernández maintained that the project had ceased to be a law to speed up building licences and had become an “omnibus law” by incorporating numerous amendments on matters unrelated to its purpose. She accused the government of favouring incentivised affordable housing over social housing, reducing protection periods, increasing profit margins for developers and using the housing crisis to benefit private interests.

Socorro Beato of CC defended the law as a comprehensive response to the housing problem and rejected criticism over the inclusion of other legislative changes. PP MP Luz Reverón stated that the text maintains all guarantees and public control, while removing bureaucratic obstacles to accelerate housebuilding.

Carmen Hernández of Nueva Canarias said the law uses the housing emergency as an excuse to privatise planning and argued that speeding up licences alone will not solve the problem of access to housing. Vox MP Paula Jover defended the original decree as a simple law focused on speeding up the granting of building licences, and lamented that its processing as a bill had adulterated the text by incorporating amendments on unrelated issues.

Source

Scroll to Top