Sant Antoni Town Hall has confirmed a €3,113,960 urban-planning fine against the owner responsible for an unauthorised development of 13 apartments on rural land. The buildings and associated works cover 1,425.3 square metres, according to the municipal file. The administration rejected the owner's appeal after concluding that the construction formed part of a single development and that the alleged date of completion could not be sufficiently established.

A €3.1 Million Fine for 13 Apartments

The case concerns a property in the municipality of Sant Antoni de Portmany, where municipal technicians identified 13 apartments intended for multi-family residential use, together with other buildings and installations constructed without the required planning authorisation.

According to the municipal documentation, the works cover a total of 1,425.3 square metres. The property is classified as common rural land and lies within the police zone of the public hydraulic domain of a watercourse.

The Town Hall considers the development to be contrary to the applicable urban-planning regulations and the Ibiza Island Territorial Plan (PTI).

The published documentation does not identify the property or provide its cadastral reference. It also does not establish whether the apartments were occupied, rented or marketed, or whether they were used for tourist accommodation.

Town Hall Rejects the Owner's Appeal

The administrative proceedings began with a municipal decree dated 3 December 2025. The owner's legal representative submitted allegations on 18 March 2026, which were rejected during the procedure.

On 4 June 2026, the Local Government Board approved the sanction, declaring the property owner responsible for a serious urban-planning infringement involving construction works and land uses carried out without the necessary authorisation.

The fine was set at €3,113,960 under the Balearic Islands' Urban Planning Law 12/2017.

The decision was notified to the owner's lawyer on 12 June and to the owner on 16 June. On 9 July, the owner lodged an administrative appeal, challenging the assessment of the alleged infringement and arguing that the works should be considered time-barred.

The Local Government Board examined the appeal on 23 July 2026 and rejected it in full, confirming the original sanction.

Dispute Over When the Construction Was Completed

One of the owner's main arguments concerned the age of the development. The defence maintained that the principal building had been completed in 2010, which, in its view, meant that the relevant infringement had already become time-barred.

The owner also argued that later works should be assessed independently. These included a porch or pergola reportedly dating from 2015, as well as a chicken coop, a water tank and paving works.

The Town Hall rejected the proposal to treat the different elements as separate developments for the purposes of assessing their age and possible limitation periods.

According to the municipal assessment, the buildings and installations had physical and functional connections and shared their use and purpose. The administration therefore considered them part of a single construction project rather than unrelated works.

Municipal technicians also concluded that the evidence did not establish that the entire development had been completed in 2010. Their assessment took into account technical reports, aerial photographs and inspections carried out during the proceedings.

The Town Hall maintained that the owner had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the complete and definitive completion of all the works on the date claimed.

Rural Land and the Protection of Planning Regulations

The location of the development was another central element of the case.

The municipal file places the buildings on common rural land, within the police zone of the public hydraulic domain of a watercourse. The identity of the watercourse is anonymised in the published documentation.

The Town Hall argued that the development was incompatible with the applicable planning rules and the provisions of Ibiza's Territorial Plan.

The distinction between the construction works and their possible subsequent use is important. Although the municipal file identifies 13 apartments intended for residential use, the published information does not confirm that they were operating as tourist accommodation.

Owner Also Sought Suspension of the Fine

The owner challenged not only the Town Hall's assessment of the construction works but also the financial consequences of the sanction.

Her legal representatives argued that a fine exceeding €3 million could cause serious financial damage and requested that its enforcement be suspended while the dispute was being examined.

The Town Hall rejected this request, stating that the owner had not provided sufficient financial documentation to demonstrate that payment would cause damage that would be difficult or impossible to reverse.

According to the municipal resolution, the documentation did not include the financial statements, asset declarations, loss certificates, audits or other evidence needed to substantiate the claimed economic impact.

The owner also proposed using the affected property as a form of security. The administration considered that this offer was insufficient to justify suspending enforcement, taking into account the planning circumstances of the development.

Administrative Appeal Rejected, Fine Confirmed

After considering the arguments concerning the age of the construction, the relationship between the different buildings and the request to suspend payment, Sant Antoni's Local Government Board rejected the appeal on 23 July 2026.

The decision confirmed the €3,113,960 sanction imposed for the unauthorised works and land uses.

The case is a significant example of urban-planning enforcement involving construction on rural land in Ibiza. However, the published documentation does not establish whether the owner has subsequently challenged the decision before the courts or whether any separate restoration measures have been completed.