On 15 November 2009, a group of homeowners from Planas del Rey (Planes del Rei) filed an administrative appeal against the Pratdip Town Council, challenging the refusal to accept the urbanisation and seeking recognition of the municipal obligation to guarantee the minimum public services.
1) Context
- Date: 15/11/2009.
- Authors: homeowners of the urbanisation.
- Purpose: annulment of the refusal of acceptance and assumption of municipal services.
- Place: municipality of Pratdip (Baix Camp).
2) Contested decision
- Refusal by the Pratdip Town Council to accept Planas del Rey (Planes del Rei).
- Alleged grounds: non-compliance of the infrastructures and prior requirement of a reparcelación.
3) Homeowners’ arguments
- Reparcelación is not a legal condition for the town council to provide the minimum public services (water, roads, lighting, waste collection, sanitation).
- The Law on the Bases of the Local Regime (art. 26) already obliges the municipality to provide these services, regardless of a full re-urbanisation.
- The existence of an EUCC Les Planes del Rei (Entitat Urbanística Col·laboradora de Conservacion) does not exempt the council from its obligations towards residents.
4) Cited case law
- Explicit reference to a previous judgment (in particular the ruling of 3 June 2008) confirming that the council must guarantee minimum services and cannot subordinate this responsibility to a reparcelación or to a “perfect” urbanisation.
5) Requests made
- Review and annulment of the refusal of acceptance.
- Immediate acceptance (without delay) of the urbanisation by the town council.
- Effective implementation of the minimum municipal services for the benefit of residents.
6) Analysis and scope
- Municipal strategy: to invoke reparcelación to delay acceptance and transfer the financial burden onto the residents.
- Legal strength of the appeal: based on the law (art. 26) and on case law already unfavourable to the council.
- Evidentiary value: demonstrates that as early as 2009, homeowners were already challenging the “reparcelación prerequisite” and recalling the previous condemnations.
7) Conclusion
- The 2009 appeal is a key document: it refutes the argument “no reparcelación, no acceptance”, and reaffirms the municipal responsibility to guarantee minimum services.
- It highlights the persistence of an administrative and political deadlock despite the existing case law.
