Cyprus’ Audit Office has warned that town planning exemptions risk becoming the rule rather than the exception, undermining urban planning policies and potentially allowing unauthorised developments to be legalised retrospectively.
In a special report published on Wednesday, auditor-general Andreas Papaconstantinou raised concerns over the granting of planning permits that deviate from established development plans, following an examination of procedures between 2020 and 2023.
“The findings of this report raise reasonable concerns that, gradually, the exception risks becoming the rule,” Papaconstantinou said in the foreword to the report.
He stressed that the provision allowing planning permits to be granted by derogation was introduced to address exceptional circumstances, not to operate as a second, parallel planning system or a means of circumventing development plans.
During the period examined, 633 applications for planning exemptions were considered, including 259 relating to the construction of individual homes, of which 139 were approved.
The Audit Office warned that allowing homes to be built outside designated development boundaries could undermine planning consistency and the protection of agricultural land.
Exemption precedent
Papaconstantinou cautioned that each exemption could set a precedent for subsequent applications, gradually weakening the planning framework.
“A single house outside development boundaries can become an argument for a second and a third, until the planning framework established by the state is overturned, not through an institutional review, but through the accumulation of exceptions,” he said.
The report identified significant delays in processing applications, inconsistencies in decision-making and cases where planning regulations were not followed.
It also found that assessment criteria were broadly worded, leaving room for different interpretations, while differences between recommendations made by planning authorities and the Council for the Study of Derogations (Symepa) were not always adequately justified.
Among the most concerning findings were cases in which the cabinet, following recommendations from Symepa, approved planning exemptions for developments that had already been carried out without the necessary permits.
One case involved premises in an industrial zone in Larnaca district that had been licensed as warehouses but were operating as a supermarket.
Previous applications to change the property’s use had been rejected in 2012 and 2014, and two enforcement notices had been issued.
The planning authority again recommended rejecting the application, warning that approval could be seen as rewarding unauthorised development.
Ignoring development plans
According to the report, Symepa itself acknowledged that the development substantially affected the overall strategy of the applicable development plan, encouraged unregulated development and undermined fundamental planning provisions.
Nevertheless, it recommended granting a temporary four-year planning permit, which the cabinet approved.
The Audit Office noted that, at the time of its report, the supermarket appeared to be continuing operations without the temporary permit having been issued, as the applicant had not completed the necessary procedures.
Another case concerned a house built without permission on high-quality agricultural land within an irrigation scheme in Famagusta district.
The Audit Office found insufficient evidence that key claims used to justify the positive recommendation had been adequately examined.
The report also referred, for completeness, to a separate case outside the scope of the audit involving 20 houses built without the required permits outside a residential zone in Limassol district.
Symepa recommended approving the applications subject to compensatory measures, and the cabinet granted planning permission on February 8, 2023.
The Audit Office referred the case to the Independent Authority Against Corruption on June 27, 2024.
The audit also highlighted substantial differences between the assessments of planning authorities and Symepa, despite both examining the same information.
Disagreement between authorities
Between 2020 and 2023, Symepa departed from the planning authorities’ recommendations in 90 out of 627 cases, representing 14.35 per cent. In 2023 alone, the proportion rose to 21.4 per cent.
The Audit Office stressed that disagreement between two competent authorities was not necessarily a weakness, but said significant departures from technical assessments must be clearly justified.
“When the final conclusion differs substantially from the technical views presented, the administrative file should clearly demonstrate the reasoning that led to a different assessment of the same facts and criteria,” the report said.
Significant delays were also recorded, with the average time required to examine applications ranging between 25 and 31 months during the period under review.
However, processing times varied considerably, with some applications completed in less than three months and others taking more than ten years.