The tourism and hotel sector in Maspalomas, the archipelago's economic engine, faces a crucial battle over its business model and reputation. The long-standing conflict between tourism and residential use of accommodation units in tourist areas has reached a turning point, marked by the Canary Islands Government's imminent amendment of a decree law and growing concern about the impact of noise pollution on the visitor experience. What happens when someone who has bought a house next to a hotel, knowing it's a tourist area, complains about the noise in the complexes?
The Canary Islands Government, in a strategic move to address the high level of litigation, plans to modify the management of tourist areas. A draft decree would allow permanent residents who can prove their residency in these areas before January 1, 2017, to consolidate their use. This measure aims to bring about a supposed "social peace," responding to demands from groups such as the Platform of Those Affected by the Tourism Law (PALT). Sources close to the matter indicate that it will leave "few excuses" for PALT and the Canary Islands Association of Holiday Rentals (ASCAV), putting an end to the exchange of lawsuits and sanctions.
At a second level, the San Bartolomé de Tirajana City Council, through its Tourism Councilor, Alejandro Marichal, proposes arguing that prior to 1996 there was no defined use for the land, allowing occupants to choose their own. This position, based on a report by Professor José Francisco Villar Rojas, adds fuel to the fire by questioning the historical zoning.
While efforts are underway to resolve the administrative labyrinth of residential development, another problem threatens the sector's competitiveness: noise. Yomara García Viera, a lawyer and president of the National Association of Lawyers Against Noise, emphasizes that hotels are among the most affected by noise pollution in tourist areas. "By the time the problem is resolved, the tourist has already left and will post on social media and the internet about their poor sleep and the disruptive activities," she explains.
The problem is structural. The hotel stock, most of which predates the 2013 Technical Building Code (CTE), does not meet minimum sound insulation standards. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that the CTE establishes insufficient requirements, placing Spain at the bottom of the European rankings for acoustic comfort—an alarming statistic given that the country is the second noisiest in the world according to the WHO.
García Viera is emphatic: hotel owners are entitled to complain. "Nightlife activities near hotels can generate numerous noise and acoustic pollution problems," he points out. He also highlights the indirect effects: induced traffic, antisocial behavior, alcohol and drug use, fights, and the obvious deterioration of the surrounding area. Therefore, hotels have the status of "interested parties" to demand the cessation of the polluting activity and municipal inspections, since tourist complaints entail a "loss of assets and damage to the hotel industry's image."
In the case of large gatherings of people drinking alcohol in public, responsibility is shared between those responsible and the city council for failing to monitor and inspect the area. According to the legal expert, the administration is "slow and ineffective," and the lack of sound level meters used by the police exacerbates the problem, as they often only issue reports based on subjective perceptions.
Regarding the "pre-existence theory" (buying an apartment in a bar area knowing that the establishment is there), García Viera clarifies that the fact that the business existed beforehand does not legitimize it to make as much noise as it wants. Corrective measures can be demanded to ensure that the fundamental right to privacy and the inviolability of the home are not violated. There are already court rulings establishing that urban acoustic comfort is possible, making it a public health issue, and therefore municipalities must enforce the regulations.
The solution lies in education, civic responsibility, and improved urban planning, recognizing that some uses are incompatible with residential areas. Furthermore, it denounces the fact that sanctions, when imposed, often compensate polluting activities, whose profits outweigh the cost of the fine. Therefore, it advocates for urgent precautionary measures such as halting the music or ceasing the activity altogether.
Phenomena such as party boats or people bringing amplifiers to the beach also generate conflicts. García Viera points out that if the noise reaches a home, the authorities must take action, as happened in Ibiza regarding bird protection. At the beach, the usual goal is to relax, so bringing amplifiers is sharing noise, not music. "It's basically a matter of education," he concludes.
In this complex scenario, Gran Canaria's hotel sector is torn between the need for clear regulations to protect the unity of tourism operations and the urgent need to combat noise pollution, which is eroding its most valuable asset: customer satisfaction and relaxation. The tourism excellence proclaimed in recent reports clashes with the reality of a noisy environment and a model of coexistence in crisis.
