Andorra la Vella Residents Protest Comella Parc's 28-Home Development Over Trees, Access and Density

Residents in Andorra la Vella's Comella Parc neighbourhood have intensified complaints over a private development of 28 semi-detached homes, citing a lack of prior notice, extensive tree felling, access disruptions and higher density than similar local projects.

Construction began earlier this month with significant deforestation and earthworks at the site near Prat Primer path, affecting around 40 homes in phases 1, 2 and 3. Neighbours reported trucks blocking garage access without warning, prompting traffic service intervention. They highlighted the site's proximity to a pine forest, raising concerns over fire risks without apparent safety buffers, alongside unanswered questions on traffic studies, parking, construction vehicle management and environmental safeguards.

Residents demanded transparency, access to technical reports, explanations for allowing 28 homes on the plot—versus about 10 in comparable zones—and ongoing communication channels to limit impacts. Some have sought support from environmental groups advocating sustainable growth.

The council, responding to the outcry, confirmed the building permit was granted in early 2024 after standard procedures, including favourable government reports. It stressed the project aligns with pre-existing urban plans: in 1995, La Comella Parc SA registered the Cortal de l’Estevet and Borda del Roselló land, authorising urbanisation works that created roads and plots. The main road transferred to the council in 1998. With no soil classification rules then, private land was buildable; the 2000 Territorial Planning Law reclassified urbanised areas like this as consolidated urban soil, preserving development rights.

Previous phases built over 100 homes since 1998, including 10 in 1998-1999, 22 in 2002, 30 across 2021-2022 and others since. Officials noted a resident meeting was already scheduled before complaints, now including this "phase 4", to address doubts, provide clear information and maintain dialogue.

The council framed the session as routine neighbourhood engagement, underscoring proximity to citizens amid works consistent with the site's long-established framework. Neighbours view the administration's response as reactive, questioning coherence in oversight despite its supervisory role.