Comparativa
El pelotazo, en una tabla.
Executive summary
What MP25 is and why the Association questions it
Partial Modification 25 (MP25) alters the 2013 PGOU on the Calle Quijote 12 plot, right behind the historic houses of Calle San José.
The Town Hall presents it as a «green-area expansion to protect two pines». In the Association's view, its real effect is to enable a fourth storey (penthouse) not contemplated in the current plan, with a residents' estimate of more than 2,200 m² of additional floor area, in favour of the company that owns the plot.
It is processed as «simplified environmental assessment» in 60 days, while the pedestrianisation promised in 2013 has been pending for 13 years. The Association identifies three substantial changes on which it calls for greater public debate: 571 m² cession, NUH reclassification and a penthouse it considers contradictory with MP21 approved 4 months earlier.
What fits vs what they want to build
2013 PGOU · Current plan
PB+2 · 3 storeys · respects the 17th-century historic fabric
MP25 · What they want to build
PB+2+penthouse · 4 storeys · 15-metre blank wall over the old town
The numbers behind the urban-planning change
+2,200 m²
Penthouse area not foreseen in the current PGOU
60 days
Express processing of MP25
13 years
Pedestrianisation pending since 2013
571 m²
Green-area cession as counterpart
4 months
Between MP21 (banning penthouses) and MP25 (granting one)
1 storey
Extra height granted over the current plan
Point-by-point comparison
Building height
PB+2 · ground floor + 2 storeys (3 storeys total). 17th c. fabric respected.
PB+2+penthouse · ground floor + 2 storeys + penthouse (4 storeys). 15-metre blank wall.
Buildability
Volume adjusted to the protected Historic Centre.
+2,200 m² of additional floor space via unforeseen penthouses.
Light & ventilation
Patios with natural light and cross ventilation.
Screen effect. Patios in permanent shade.
16th c. channel
Hijuela de Mingot beneath the plot, protected.
Foundations without prior archaeological control.
Penthouses
Not contemplated in current zoning.
+2,200 m² of unforeseen penthouses, contradicting MP21.
Regulatory consistency
MP21 (May 2024) expressly banned penthouses in the area.
MP25 (Sept. 2024) grants them to a single developer 4 months later.
Procedure
Structural amendment of the PGOU requires ordinary environmental assessment.
Processed as «simplified» (art. 53 TRLOTUP); the Association questions whether this was the appropriate route.
Unequal treatment of residents vs. developer
Residents of the old town are required to maintain and restore their façades under threat of fines, while the Town Hall itself damages them by allowing the constant passage of buses and lorries whose vibrations crack and degrade the buildings.
In the Association's view, the developer obtains a tailor-made adjustment to planning, in practice exempting him from burdens comparable to those borne by residents.
Administrative speed
Pedestrianisation approved in 2013, pending 13 years.
MP25 processed in 60 days with minimal public hearing.
Beneficiary
Residents, local commerce, old town, heritage.
According to the Association, the company owning the plot would be the main beneficiary.
Cession
Not applicable without urban action justifying it.
571 m² of green area presented as an improvement; the Association questions its proportionality to the development rights granted.
Heritage (NUH)
Historic Centre perimeter fixed and protected (BRL).
The Association understands that the perimeter is being redrawn so that the plot ends up outside it.
Applicable legal framework
2013 PGOU
Current General Plan. Sets PB+2 in the area and orders the pedestrianisation of the Historic Centre (NUH file).
MP21 / 2024
Partial Modification 21 that reaffirms the ban on penthouses in the area. Approved 4 months before MP25.
Art. 21 TRLOTUP
Height and NUH perimeter are structural ordering determinations; amending them requires the ordinary procedure.
Art. 33 TRLOTUP
Requires the Administration to execute the determinations of its own plans (pedestrianisation pending).
Art. 53 TRLOTUP
Simplified channel improperly used: substantial amendments cannot be processed this way.
Art. 109.2 LPACAP
Material-error correction cannot modify normative determinations (case-law STS 3rd, 15/06/2015).
Art. 6.4 Civil Code
Fraud of law: using a covering rule for a forbidden result. Leads to radical nullity (art. 47.1.e LPACAP).
Art. 36 Spanish Constitution
Duty to preserve historical heritage, breached by municipal inactivity.
«The balance is not ideological. It is arithmetic. MP25 gives more to a private actor than it asks of the entire neighbourhood.»