What was announced for today
According to the family, the letter does not say what "disabling" involves: whether the house will be sealed, locked or bricked up, or whether other steps will block access (Canarias7, Diario de Fuerteventura). Fuerteventura Digital assessed on 17 September that Costas would drop demolition for now and seek to evict and seal. That is the paper's reading, not an announcement by the authority.
Radio Sintonía sent a team to the site this morning. By the time of writing there were no reports on whether the owner was inside, how many people had gathered or whether the Guardia Civil was present.
Why "saved for now" no longer holds
On 26 August the Cabildo's interim measures halted the demolition. The gap is in the wording: the resolution suspends "any demolition action" until a study establishes whether the house has heritage value. An eviction or sealing that leaves the building unchanged is not expressly covered, in Fuerteventura Digital's reading.
The family asked for the measures to be extended to any "disabling, sealing, bricking-up, closure or eviction", so far without success. Pájara mayor Alejandro Jorge said on 19 September that, after technical and legal advice, the council could not do so. He says he sent five letters to other authorities (Canarias7, Radio Insular).
The coastal authority's position
Costas relies on the 2005 boundary, which places the house in the public maritime-terrestrial zone (dominio público marítimo-terrestre), where the 1988 Coastal Law bans residential use, and on the court authorisation of 28 July (eldiario.es). The Canary government, too, refers to a "final administrative decision". As early as 1994 a Canary directorate sanctioned an unauthorised hut at Cueva de la Negra in the coastal protection zone and required its demolition, according to the official gazette (Atlántico Hoy).
The family's lawyer, José Luis Langa, told Fuerteventura Digital he had appealed up to the Supreme Court without success, because the courts apply the Coastal Law. According to Cabildo sources, Costas responded to the interim measures by announcing an appeal. By the time of writing there was no statement from Costas or the central government's delegation about today.
Coastal Law versus heritage law: who decides what
Beyond this house, the question is which law prevails on the coast. The Canary Islands took over part of coastal management in 2023, but the state keeps boundary-setting and recovery of the public zone (Fuerteventura Digital). Heritage belongs to the Canary Islands and the island councils: Law 11/2019 allows urgent measures and the suspension of works. The heritage directorate headed by Miguel Ángel Clavijo warned Costas that a final decision does not change that division, and that any impact on the archaeological site next to the house needs a favourable report from the Cabildo. Clavijo criticised Costas' "arrogance and high-handedness" (Fuerteventura Digital, 17 September).
The Canary coastal directorate also wants a review of whether a transitional provision of the Coastal Law applies, which can grant former owners a concession. The family cites a 1980 ruling of the Audiencia Provincial that it says recognised acquisition of the original building by the owner's husband through prescription (Onda Fuerteventura). In short: the state decides on the coastline, the Canary Islands on heritage, and where they collide, the courts.
Courts, politics, protest
Admitting the appeal does not by itself stop the operation: the other parties have 15 days to respond and no suspension has been reported. According to the family, the order under appeal obliges Costas to report the entry and any incident to the court (Canarias7). Langa announced on 15 September that he would seek urgent interim relief (Diario de Fuerteventura); no ruling is known.
The AM-CC party accused the state of "caciquil", or boss-style, authority (La Voz de Fuerteventura). The family said it would be on site "from the night of Sunday the 20th" (Diario de Fuerteventura). The state's island office does not object to a peaceful gathering, but the family calls its conditions "very restrictive".