Andratx Cleans Up — But at What Cost?

Andratx Cleans Up — But at What Cost?

Court ruling, millions in expenses and the question of responsibility

Key question: Why is the municipality now paying millions to dismantle a luxury project that began more than ten years ago on protected land — and who will ultimately be held accountable?

The scene is familiar: in the small harbor of Port d'Andratx fishing boats bob in a light swell, gulls screech, and just a few kilometers away an unfinished settlement juts out of the pine slopes like a foreign body. In Monport, on Calle Ramat, the dismantling of a luxury complex of 29 buildings is now to be advanced following a final court ruling from 2020. Construction work had already been stopped in 2007; at that time the complex was estimated to be roughly 80 percent complete in shell form.

The municipal council has allocated funds by adjusting the budget: around €5.5 million will go toward the demolition on Calle Ramat, and the entire package amounts to just under €11.7 million. The decision is intended to finance additional municipal measures: the renovation of the house "Cas Metge" (about €1.7 million), the modernization of sports facilities (just over €1.5 million), the restoration of a plot on Calle Tonyina in Cala Llamp (€113,000), as well as investments in the sewage and stormwater network and the refurbishment of a youth center, and work on the waterfront promenade of Port d'Andratx begins in January.

Politically the matter runs deep: the affair dates back to decisions made during the terms of earlier officials. The current mayor has stated that the municipality is not acting voluntarily but is implementing a court ruling. That, however, does not relieve anyone of the duty to scrutinize the sequence of errors: how could buildings on protected terrain have progressed so far without the administrative machinery intervening effectively? And why did it take so long to implement the judicial decision?

Critical analysis: the bill is being paid by the public. Authorities must enforce rulings, of course — but using public funds to remedy private legal violations raises questions. Other municipalities have faced similar dilemmas, notably Manacor stops demolition of the Topaz apartments in Cales de Mallorca. The public debate lacks practical answers on how municipalities can protect themselves financially against such legacy burdens. Prevention apparently remained weak: earlier control mechanisms should have allowed firmer interventions before shell structures became a problem.

What is missing from the discourse: the reuse of the cleared land. It remains unclear whether the plots will be renatured after demolition, designed as public green space, or re-tendered under particularly strict regulations. Nor is there enough open discussion about how the municipality intends to fully recover costs from the former developers or owners — or whether such claims will fail for lack of assets.

A slice of everyday life: at the weekly market in Andratx, amid fruit stalls and the vendors' voices, people discuss the same issues — some want peace from derelict building ruins, others fear higher fees or cuts to projects elsewhere. No one likes the noise of a demolition excavator, but many hope that in the end a piece of land will remain that truly benefits the community.

Concrete proposals: first, strengthen municipal development control — regular building inspections, mandatory deposits from investors and faster enforcement procedures. Second, create a publicly accessible remediation plan that links reuse, ecology and citizen participation; priority should be given to green spaces, coastal access and nature-based restoration, illustrated by the demolition of two abandoned hotels in Paguera and Magaluf. Third, consolidate claims for damages and pursue them where possible through enforcement or insolvency proceedings. Fourth, use sustainable demolition methods — reuse of building materials, prevention of soil erosion and reforestation with native species. Fifth, conduct an independent review of decision-making processes from past decades so that administrative errors do not cause costly consequences again.

The conclusion is pointed: legal clarity is important, but not sufficient. If liability issues, land reuse and preventive controls are not addressed at the same time, another bill looms — and the community will pay again. Andratx now faces an opportunity: a building sin could become a small local project for sustainable reuse and better administrative culture. Whether that succeeds will be decided in the coming months, between the noise of demolition and the autumn scent of pine resin.