Battle of the islands moves to Armona as British owned house receives demolition order

TodHouseSmallThe battle of the islands has moved to Armona where a high profile case leaves the Olhão mayor exposed and a couple from the UK out of pocket, close to despair and determed to warn foreigners thinking of investing in Portugal.

Paul Roseby and James Tod bought two adjoining plots on Armona, applied to the council for planning consent and were awarded a building licence for their dream home on this dreamy Ria Formosa island.

Olhão council has jurisdiction over Armona but the council's powers are not total nor does its jurisdiction cover the whole island area.

The powers held by the council go back to a deal signed in 1983, when the State gave the municipality management powers over the island with the council empowered to issue building permits in accordance with the national planning laws.

As a result, around 850 houses were built quite legally, but 140 further properties were allowed to be built outside the council’s concession area.

All of these properties are considered legal by the council but illegal by the Portuguese Environmental Agency which cites the laws covering the Ria Formosa Natural Park, the Coastal Land Management Plan, National Ecological Reserve and Maritime Public Domain.

The Britons, both involved at a high level in the arts in London, have been notified that their house, now nearly completed, must be removed despite their having received planning permission and a building licence in January 2016 from Olhão council which seems to have issued licences for a property in an area of Armona where it has no jurisdiction under the 1983 agreement.

The Portuguese Environmental Agency demolition order was countered with an injunction lodged in the Administrative and Fiscal Court in Loulé to suspend the possession and demolition process.

Then there is the National Maritime Authority which is empowered to issue a fine for the illegal work between €10,000 and €100,000 and also an Intervention and Requalification Project for Armona which covers legal buildings, but not the 140 illegal ones - a point rejected by Olhão’s mayor.

Regrettably this plan involves the discredited Polis Litoral Ria Formosa company which was meant to "guarantee conditions of use and habitability" for Armona’s settlement but has done nothing in this regard while occupying its energies in demolishing properties on Culatra and Farol - 370 so far, and counting.

Olhão’s mayor, António Pina, was questioned by Público and said his council had not requested the opinions of the Institute for the Conservation of Nature, the Portuguese Environment Agency nor the Commission for the Development of the Algarve "because it is a concession that is governed by the rules of the detail Occupation and Recovery Plan Of the Urban-Tourist Zone of Armona.”

António  Pina said the issuance of the license was supported by the technical opinions of his urban planning department (the head of which already is facing a corruption charge on another matter CLICK HERE) and “reinforced in a ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court."

No so, say the other bodies involved, which claim the council needed their prior consent.

The mayor of Olhão said to Público that he hopes to have “the understanding” of the Minister of the Environment, Pedro Matos Fernandes, “to defend the interests of the two citizens” who have been affected. But what about the other 139 properties that must at some point be removed as the Ministry of the Envoronment's island clearance programme continues?

One thing is for sure, the British couple are angered and disillusioned at the Portuguese system which allows one thing and does another.

It was not up to Paul Roseby and James Tod to study Portugal's regional and local planning laws and the issuance of a license to build should have remained a joyful moment along the journey to a dream come true.

Instead they are locked in a brutal planning dispute, seriously out of pocket and wondering how a EU country in the 21st century can have such a complexity of rules that has made them both scapegoat and guinea-pig.

'Caveat emptor'in this case does not apply - the Britons took every possible care to do things legally yet have been left with an investment that may well have to be written off and with fines for taking, what they had been assured by the council, was the correct course of action.




Pin It