In response to the recent interview with the General Director of Tourism Planning on Radio Lanzarote-Onda Cero, in which Miguel Ángel Rodríguez emphasized the obligation of vacation homes to have classified activity since 2015, ASCAV warns that this requirement will eliminate 90% of vacation homes.
The Association explains that “it is impossible for a small vacation home owner to comply with a classified activity regulation not adapted to the sector.”
ASCAV recognizes that the 2015 Vacation Home Decree establishes that vacation homes must comply with the sectorial regulations that apply to them “and, in general, those of classified activities.”
However, the Association emphasizes that “it is also true that vacation homes are, in the first instance and above all, precisely that, homes.”
ASCAV explains that in reality, “the regulations governing classified activities in the Canary Islands date back to 2011 (prior to the 2015 Vacation Home Regulations)” and referred to “hotels, apartment complexes, etc., which were the existing modalities in 2011. It never thought of vacation homes, for the simple reason that they did not even exist.”
“Now the Government of the Canary Islands clings to this issue as a burning nail (imposition of classified activity requirements on vacation homes), knowing that with this they will eliminate 90% of existing vacation homes,” argues ASCAV.
The Canary Islands Vacation Rental Association explains that since 2019, it has met with the Canarian Executive, led by the PSOE at the time, concerned about the “impossible compliance with this municipal administrative procedure for several reasons.”
The reasons why it is "impossible for the small owner"
Firstly, ASCAV highlights that “the activity classification regulations were promulgated in 2011 with Law 7/2011 and Decrees 86/2013 and 156/2013 were drafted without vacation homes existing.”
The classified activity regulations, it continues, “are designed for bars, restaurants, hotels, apartment complexes, etc.” ASCAV does not understand that a small vacation home owner has to comply with this requirement when “for the Tax Agency they are not even carrying out an economic activity but rather a return on real estate capital (a rental without the provision of services).”
In addition, it highlights, “a small owner does not have to formalize registration in economic activities (036 or 037), nor registration as self-employed, because the mere rental of their property does not require it.”
On the other hand, ASCAV recalls that “the use of the vacation home continues to be residential and not tourist, so it does not negatively impact the municipal General Planning Plans.”
In addition, it highlights that “it was Decree 113/2015 itself that initially prohibited VV on tourist land to protect hotels and relegated vacation homes to residential land.”
“This situation was brought to the attention of the new Tourism Department with the PP at the helm (a party that since 2013 has always supported and defended the VV model) with the express request to find a definitive solution to this problem. Furthermore, we were assured in several meetings that with respect to the new regulations we would agree by 90%.”
ASCAV emphasizes that its surprise “has been enormous to see that finally the cornerstone of our greatest concern has been maliciously thrown against us.”
“When the Government of the Canary Islands, in the hands of CC and PP, states demagogically that the VVs that are legal will stay and that they will defend the small VV owners, they are deceiving twistedly and malevolently a citizenry that, in addition to not having read or understood the convoluted Preliminary Draft Law, trusts and believes that by having submitted their responsible declaration to the Cabildo or the Government of the Canary Islands, they are duly authorized and in a situation of full legality.”
It is for all the above that ASCAV has been so forceful since the bill was announced, “since it was aware of the disastrous intentions of the new Government, which is none other than to end vacation homes.”
On the one hand, they highlight, “it forces the VV to change the use from residential to tourist, so in collective buildings, in no case will residential and tourist use homes be able to coexist because they would clash head-on with the Municipal General Planning Plans (PGOs).”
For the rest of the constructions, they explain, “it will be necessary to previously change each PGO, which is a process that takes years.”
Despite everything stated, ASCAV says to “continue with the hope and outstretched hand to find a reasonable solution and wording to this new regulation.”
