The president of Cyprus’ Scientific and Technical Chamber (ETEK), Constanti Constantinos, says authorities should not grant retrospective planning permission to unauthorised developments.
His comments follow findings in a special report by the Audit Office on the Council for the Study of Derogations (SYMEPA).
In comments to Politis, Constantinos said SYMEPA has several strengths. Its public hearings, transparent procedures and consultation with relevant departments help ensure that the process is open and inclusive.
However, he said the system must be used carefully to prevent abuse. SYMEPA’s decisions should be fully supported by evidence and based on the rules governing its work.
Constantinos added that the process should not be used to legalise unauthorised developments after the event. He said that allowing projects built without the necessary approvals to obtain permits later would undermine planning policy and treat those who follow the rules unfairly.
Audit identifies serious weaknesses
The Audit Office’s report found serious weaknesses in the process for granting planning permission by derogation. It warned that exceptions risk becoming the rule.
The report identified cases in which unauthorised developments received permission after earlier applications had been rejected, enforcement notices had been issued and relevant authorities had advised against approval.
It said that, in certain cases, the Council of Ministers approved planning permits for unauthorised developments after receiving recommendations from SYMEPA.
One example involved premises in an industrial zone that had permission to operate as warehouses but were being used illegally as a supermarket. Earlier applications to change the use had been rejected in 2012 and 2014, and two enforcement notices had been issued.
The Planning Authority recommended rejecting the application again, warning that approval could be seen as rewarding unauthorised development. SYMEPA also recorded that the development substantially affected the strategy of the current Development Plan, encouraged unplanned growth and bypassed key planning rules.
Despite this, SYMEPA recommended a temporary four-year planning permit. The Council of Ministers accepted the recommendation, the report said.
Another case involved a detached house built on high-quality agricultural land within an irrigation project in Famagusta district. Previous applications to build a house had been rejected, but the house was constructed without permission.
The Planning Authority said the owners knew, or should have known, what development the plot allowed. It also said the house ran counter to the strategic goal of protecting fertile, productive farmland and that approval could set a damaging precedent.
Nevertheless, SYMEPA unanimously recommended approval, and the Council of Ministers granted it. The Audit Office said it found no evidence that key claims used to justify the positive recommendation had been adequately examined.
Repeated retrospective approval of unauthorised developments weakens enforcement and can create unfair competition against those who comply with the required procedures from the outset, the report said.
Long delays in processing applications
The report also highlighted lengthy delays in deciding applications. Between 2020 and 2023, the average processing time ranged from 25 to 31 months. In some cases, the process took more than a decade.
The Audit Office warned that such delays allow illegal or unpermitted developments to become established facts on the ground.
It also found frequent differences between recommendations from Planning Authorities and SYMEPA, with the reasons for those differences not always adequately explained. Between 2020 and 2023, SYMEPA diverged from the authorities’ recommendations in 90 of the 627 cases it examined. In 2023, the figure rose to 21.4%.
The Audit Office called for a review of the derogation framework, stricter action against unauthorised development, clearer assessment criteria, greater transparency around compensatory measures and stronger monitoring of applications. It said these steps were needed to protect confidence in planning policy.
SYMEPA responds to the findings
In its response to the Audit Office, SYMEPA said the processing time should be measured from the point when it has received all the required reports and opinions from the relevant authorities. It said delays in some cases were caused by late submissions from public services or applicants.
The council also said applications are generally examined within two to four months after the file is complete. It said only exceptional cases take longer, such as those requiring a public hearing or further meetings with departments and organisations to gather information. More complex cases, it added, need more time.
SYMEPA said Article 26(2) of the Town and Country Planning Law empowers the Council of Ministers to approve departures from the current Development Plan in exceptional, justified cases that serve the public interest, or in other special circumstances, whether or not the development has already been completed.
It argues that retrospective permission for unauthorised developments is lawful when supported by evidence and justified under the principles and criteria set out in Regulation 19(1) of the relevant regulations.
By Georgia Hanni
Translated and adapted from an article published by Politis
