The programme, by contrast, was a full one: entrance hall, living-dining room and kitchen in a single space, a study, two bedrooms and a bathroom on the ground floor; a main bedroom with en-suite bathroom and dressing room on the first floor; and a storeroom of its own. Renovating the inside without touching the envelope would have left the house just as badly fitted to its plot as before, with nowhere to put that storeroom. That was the real conflict in the brief, and it is not solved by moving partitions.<\/p>\n
The decision: demolish one volume and reorder the house<\/h2>\n
Two moves, in this order. First, demolish the detached WC volume on the ground floor: 1.75 m\u00b2 of usable area whose removal brings the building\u2019s footprint into line with the boundary setback, the site coverage and the floor area at a stroke. Second, move the storage out of the principal rooms, so the house gains programme without using up floor-area allowance.<\/p>\n
The final figures are 151.27 m\u00b2 of countable floor area against the 151.49 m\u00b2 permitted, and 138.35 m\u00b2 of site coverage against the same ceiling. That leaves 0.22 m\u00b2 of margin. It is not virtuosity \u2014 it is simply what was left, and it explains why every decision on the plan was checked against the area schedule before it was drawn.<\/p>\n
The house reorganised, and the interiors<\/h2>\n
The staircase is what frees up the plan. The old opening is closed and a new one cut in a different position. Moving a staircase in an eighties house is not something you do for its own sake, but it is what lets the ground floor work as a single space rather than a sum of rooms.<\/p>\n
With the stair off the middle of the plan, the ground floor settles into 87.10 m\u00b2 usable: entrance hall, living-dining room and kitchen as one open space, a study, two bedrooms and a bathroom. The first floor holds 32.95 m\u00b2 usable for the main bedroom with en-suite bathroom and dressing room. Outside there is a pergola-covered terrace of 45.77 m\u00b2 and an open terrace of 84.76 m\u00b2 usable, which on this coast is where life is really lived for much of the year.<\/p>\n
The envelope is put right from the inside. The existing brick walls are lined with a self-supporting stud wall, rock wool panels and plasterboard: the way to upgrade an eighties house without rebuilding its fa\u00e7ade. Hot water comes from an air-source heat pump, drainage is separated into foul and rainwater, ventilation is hybrid with trickle vents in the window frames and mechanical extract in the kitchen and bathrooms, and climate control is air-to-air through ducts concealed in a services ceiling. The services are justified in the project\u2019s own appendices: REBT, DB HS-4, DB HS-5 and RITE.<\/p>\n
The interior design is our own as well, set out in drawings for floors, bathrooms, kitchen, ceilings, furniture, lighting and climate control. Large-format porcelain floors, Walmer Pearl 90\u00d790, with slip resistance class C1, C2 or C3 depending on the room and on whether it is inside or out. Made-to-measure timber furniture, a custom-designed 160 x 50 x 13 cm TAU porcelain washbasin in the main bathroom, wall-hung Roca Ona sanitaryware, brushed rose gold taps and trims, and mirrors with perimeter lighting. External aluminium joinery in anthracite, with floor-to-ceiling windows. The proposal renders were delivered to the owners on 18 December 2025; bathroom and tile supplies were agreed with PROINCO and Palomo Cer\u00e1micas, using TAU products.<\/p>\n
From COA certification to building permit: an eight-month process<\/h2>\n
The basic and construction design was certified by the College of Architects of M\u00e1laga (visado del COA<\/em>) on 30 October 2025. The application went in to Rinc\u00f3n de la Victoria Town Hall on 24 November 2025, and the decree granting the major works permit (licencia de obra mayor<\/em>) arrived on 22 July 2026: eight months, with two requests for corrections along the way. The first asked for UTM coordinates of the plot and the building and proof that the public highway and construction-waste bonds had been lodged; the second, for a cadastral graphic validation report. None of it was unreasonable and none of it was a surprise, but it added eight months to the client\u2019s calendar. A file carrying inherited planning excesses gets looked at more closely, and that is something to flag when the commission is signed, not in month six.<\/p>\n The works were put out to tender among three contractors.<\/p>\nGallery<\/h2>\n
![\"En-suite](\"https:\/\/www.klicarquitectos.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/06.-BANO-1-OPC.-1-1200x675-1.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n![\"Interior](\"https:\/\/www.klicarquitectos.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/WhatsApp-Image-2026-02-03-at-13.31.59-29-900x600-1.jpeg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\nProject data<\/h2>\n
\n
Related projects<\/h2>\n