BRIEF COMMENT ON ORDERS ON IMPLEMENTATION
Friday, May 28, 2010
Keshyog Hair Oil Contact
As usual, we are back in this space of freedom aimed at urban area. At this time we will discuss a practical problem with which they are the competent authorities in the field; mainly the municipalities.
In principle, and because jurisdiction lies exclusively on the field delas Autonomous Communities, will be precisely those which by their regional laws addressing the treatment of so-called warrants. However, we can offer a view from the plane of a given autonomous region, in this case Castilla y León, and extrapolate the rest in regard to the definition and understanding of them.
In the case of Castile and Leon, these are precisely within what is referred to as
instruments to promote conservation, rehabilitation and new building. no doubt the applicability of the warrants will be contained within the measures concerning the maintenance in good condition of the buildings by their owners, and always limited by the legal duty imposed by such conservation regulatory text in tune with the state regulation in this area.
is Article 319 of the Rules of Urbansimo of Castile and Leon, as amended by Decree 45/2009, which provides an approach to this figure by the same object. The content of that article reads: 
"The City Council, ex officio or at the request of any interested
may issue enforcement orders to compel precise property owners to fulfill the duties urban
out in Article 14 may require them to carry out the works and
necessary to adapt the property to the
conditions set out in planning regulations and the other standards, such as: a) The establishment, maintenance, repair or extension of urban services
.
b) The maintenance, cleaning and alterations to facades or spaces visible from the street, and cleaning and fencing of solar . c) Reform or demolition of buildings, facilities and other : 1 º. Producing a real risk to the safety of persons or property
. 2 º. Involving a real risk of environmental degradation,
natural and cultural heritage and landscape. 3 º. That are incompatible with the prevention of natural risks and technological . "
As can be seen in order to seek enforcement orders is none other than the maintenance by the property, building or soil, in perfect condition.
However, their failure to execute when a subsidiary of the City if an owner is reluctant to do such work compelled by this Order.
.
b) The maintenance, cleaning and alterations to facades or spaces visible from the street, and cleaning and fencing of solar . c) Reform or demolition of buildings, facilities and other : 1 º. Producing a real risk to the safety of persons or property
. 2 º. Involving a real risk of environmental degradation,
natural and cultural heritage and landscape. 3 º. That are incompatible with the prevention of natural risks and technological . "
As can be seen in order to seek enforcement orders is none other than the maintenance by the property, building or soil, in perfect condition.
However, their failure to execute when a subsidiary of the City if an owner is reluctant to do such work compelled by this Order.
Article 322 of Regulation available on this assumption, not uncommon, the refusal by the owner to undertake all that is required, do not forget it is coercion in forced or forced to.
Levy of execution "1. Failure of the warrants entitles the City to agree
subsidiary execution or imposition of a penalty
subsidiary execution or imposition of a penalty
in both cases to the limit of duty legal conservation and after warning the person concerned. If there
immediate risk to the safety of persons or property, or
of environmental deterioration or natural and cultural heritage, the City
must choose the execution subsidiary. of environmental deterioration or natural and cultural heritage, the City
2. Coercive fines can be imposed to achieve total
implementation of the provisions in the warrants, with a maximum of ten
successive fines imposed minimum monthly intervals for a maximum amount equal to each fine 10 percent of the value of work ordered. The cumulative amount the fines should not exceed the limit of duty conservation defined in Article 19.2. 3. The penalty payments are independent of sanctions imposed for violations urban
derived from non-compliance enforcement orders, and compatible with the same . 4. The costs of executing orders subsidiary implementation and enforcement of fines imposed, if any, may be required by the procedure administrative enforcement. "
As can be see, the defaulter must, after the deadline that the Administration has been granted to undertake the works necessary for the repair and beautification of public buildings or parts of the site in question, must be re-notified and warning that works not made by the Administration will undertake the implementation indirectly, for himself or through hiring a company to embark on the implementation of the tasks contained in the resolution that created the file. addition, as an additional means of recovering the amount of the cost of performing the work, which previously must be evacuated in the technical report as a basis for the decision-making can be forced to impose on the defaulting a series of penalty payments for the total amount of work required.
The real problem arises if the Administration undertakes the repair, replacement or maintenance works on the building to fit the required public adornment and the owner does not pay the penalty payments, or even in danger of urgency.
implementation of the provisions in the warrants, with a maximum of ten
successive fines imposed minimum monthly intervals for a maximum amount equal to each fine 10 percent of the value of work ordered. The cumulative amount the fines should not exceed the limit of duty conservation defined in Article 19.2. 3. The penalty payments are independent of sanctions imposed for violations urban
derived from non-compliance enforcement orders, and compatible with the same . 4. The costs of executing orders subsidiary implementation and enforcement of fines imposed, if any, may be required by the procedure administrative enforcement. "
As can be see, the defaulter must, after the deadline that the Administration has been granted to undertake the works necessary for the repair and beautification of public buildings or parts of the site in question, must be re-notified and warning that works not made by the Administration will undertake the implementation indirectly, for himself or through hiring a company to embark on the implementation of the tasks contained in the resolution that created the file. addition, as an additional means of recovering the amount of the cost of performing the work, which previously must be evacuated in the technical report as a basis for the decision-making can be forced to impose on the defaulting a series of penalty payments for the total amount of work required.
The real problem arises if the Administration undertakes the repair, replacement or maintenance works on the building to fit the required public adornment and the owner does not pay the penalty payments, or even in danger of urgency.
It
What do they deserve?
This question invites reflection I leave. Planning until the next appointment, take care and be happy.
UDB
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment