Unauthorised developments should not be licensed retroactively, according to the president of the Cyprus Scientific and Technical Chamber (ETEK), Constantinos Constanti. He was speaking after the Audit Office published a special report on the Deviations Study Council (Symepa).
Speaking to Politis, Mr Constanti said the Council has positive features as an institution. It strengthens transparency and public participation through the public hearings it holds, the publication of its procedures and the invitations it sends to the competent departments to submit their views.
“However, particular care is needed in how the institution is used, so that it is not abused,” he said. He added that the Council’s decisions must be fully substantiated and grounded in the regulations and provisions that govern its operation.
Mr Constanti also argued that the institution should not be used as a means of legalising unauthorised developments after the fact. In his view, projects carried out without the necessary approvals should not be eligible for a licence. Allowing this would undermine the purpose of town planning and the equal treatment of those who comply with the rules in force.
Serious weaknesses in the deviation process
The Audit Office special report identified serious weaknesses in the process for granting planning permits by way of deviation. It warned that the exception risks becoming the rule.
According to the report, there were cases in which unauthorised developments were licensed retroactively, despite earlier rejections, enforcement notices and negative recommendations from the competent authorities.
“Of particular importance are the cases in which the deviation procedure was used to license, after the fact, developments that had already been built or were operating without the necessary permits. The audit showed that the Council of Ministers, on the recommendation of the Deviations Study Council, approved planning permits for unauthorised developments in specific cases,” the report states.
Warehouses operating as a supermarket
One example concerns premises in an industrial zone. They were licensed as warehouses but were operating, without authorisation, as a supermarket. Applications for a change of use had been rejected in 2012 and 2014, and two enforcement notices had been issued.
The Planning Authority again recommended rejection. It noted that approval could be seen as rewarding unauthorised development.
“The Deviations Study Council also recorded that the development substantially affected the general strategy of the Development Plan in force, encouraged trends towards haphazard development and circumvented basic planning provisions. Nevertheless, it recommended a temporary planning permit for four years, a recommendation adopted by the Council of Ministers,” the report states.
A house on high-quality agricultural land
A similar concern arises from the case of a detached house built on high-quality agricultural land within an irrigation project in the Famagusta district.
The Planning Authority recorded several points:
- previous applications for a house had been rejected
- the house had already been built without authorisation
- the owners knew, or should have known, what could be developed on the plot
- the development ran counter to the strategic objective of protecting fertile, productive agricultural land
According to the report, the Planning Authority also recorded that approval would set a bad precedent. Despite this, the report notes, the Council unanimously recommended approval, and the Council of Ministers granted it. The audit found no evidence that key claims used to justify the positive recommendation had been adequately examined.
“The retroactive licensing of unauthorised developments, when repeated, weakens the effectiveness of the enforcement mechanism and may create conditions of unfair competition against those who comply with the required procedures from the outset,” the report stresses.
Long delays in examining applications
The report also refers to long delays in examining applications. Between 2020 and 2023, the average examination time ranged from 25 to 31 months. In some cases, the process took more than a decade. According to the Audit Office, these delays allow illegal or unlicensed developments to become established as a fait accompli.
The report also finds frequent differences between the recommendations of the Planning Authorities and those of the Council. The reasons for these differences were not always adequately documented.
- From 2020 to 2023, Symepa departed from the Planning Authorities’ recommendations in 90 of the 627 cases it examined.
- In 2023, the rate rose to 21.4%.
Audit Office recommendations
Among its recommendations, the Audit Office calls for:
- a review of the framework governing deviations
- stricter handling of unauthorised developments
- clearer assessment criteria
- greater transparency in compensatory measures
- stronger mechanisms for monitoring applications
The aim, according to the Audit Office, is to safeguard the credibility of town planning.
The Council’s response
In its observations to the Audit Office, the Deviations Study Council argued that examination times should be counted from the point at which all the reports and opinions required from the competent authorities have been received. It noted that in many cases, delays are caused by government departments, or by the applicants themselves, submitting information late.
The Council also said applications are generally examined within two to four months of the file being completed. The exceptions are very exceptional cases that require a public hearing or additional meetings with departments and organisations to obtain further information. More complex cases take longer to complete.
“Article 26(2) of the Town and Country Planning Law allows the Council of Ministers to grant a planning permit by way of deviation from the provisions of the Development Plan in force, regardless of whether the development has been carried out or not, in exceptional cases justified by the public interest or in other special cases. Retroactive licensing of unauthorised developments is therefore lawful, provided it is substantiated and justified on the basis of the principles and criteria of Regulation 19(1) of Regulatory Administrative Act 309/99,” the Council argues.
