There is a pressing need for more tourist accommodation in Orihuela Costa, a point that real estate developers have argued for some time. Now, the City Council has officially aligned itself with this view.
According to reports, a favourable environmental report has been issued by the Orihuela City Council regarding a planning modification requested by a developer in the Horizonte residential area. This proposal aims to allow for commercial and residential use on two private plots of land, which were previously designated solely for social, healthcare, and administrative purposes. Together, these two plots span 2,188 square metres.
While this decision does not constitute final approval for the development, it represents a significant step forward in the planning process, effectively dismissing objections previously raised by local residents.
The modification, which has been proposed by the company Costa Mar Torrevieja Internacional, concerns two undeveloped plots situated within the Sector I-1 Citrus Partial Plan, located in close proximity to the planned Cala Mosca “Las Vistas” development.
The proposal would permit the development of “tertiary uses in all their variations and also residential uses” on the land. This includes the potential for hotels, retail units, offices, sports and recreational facilities, as well as specialised commercial uses and private residential properties. In justifying the request, the company cited a need to adapt these plots to the current “tourist and residential reality of the municipality,” noting that Orihuela Costa currently possesses approximately 30,000 homes, of which 70 per cent are secondary residences.
Reports filed by both the municipal architect and the environmental technician have validated the developer’s request, accepting the justification provided without amendment.
Local plaintiffs had previously argued that the modification would result in an irreversible loss of land reserved for essential public services. They contended that the file failed to demonstrate that these land reserves were no longer necessary, suggesting that the interests of a private developer were being prioritised over the public good.
However, the municipal architect and the environmental technician rejected these arguments, offering a clear interpretation of urban planning regulations. They maintained that the residents were making a “fundamental conceptual error” by failing to distinguish between public and private facilities. They clarified that public facilities are protected standards defined by regulations to ensure essential government-managed services, whereas the land in question is privately owned.
The City Council further denied that the change would lead to the elimination of healthcare or administrative uses. Instead, officials stated that the usage would be “made more flexible through a compatibility regime.” While the technical experts ruled out the possibility that this modification would lead to an “indiscriminate conversion of public land into residential land,” the developer’s application has been in progress for nearly a year, leading to speculation that their ultimate objective is full residential authorisation.
Ultimately, the report concluded that because these plots are not part of the mandatory public services network, the modification does not reduce the minimum public service standards for the sector.