Apostolos Tomaras
An examination of planning permits granted as exceptions to development plans has led the auditor general to uncover troubling practices that threaten to establish a second, parallel approval system.
The findings in his report suggest that a process intended for exceptional planning cases is becoming routine—and a favored way of sidestepping development plans.
“Even more problematic is the retrospective approval of unauthorized developments. When someone knowingly breaches planning rules, presents the authorities with a fait accompli, submits successive applications and, years later, succeeds in legalizing what they built illegally, the message sent by the state is extremely dangerous. There is a risk that retrospective approval will be seen as rewarding earlier noncompliance, undermining the credibility of the planning framework and the equal treatment of those who follow the rules from the outset,” the report states.
As the auditor general rightly notes, the law allows exceptions to be granted in “extraordinary cases,” wording that leaves considerable room for interpretation.
“This discretion must not be exercised in a way that turns an exception into standard practice. We believe exceptions should be confined to genuinely extraordinary cases, rather than serving as a mechanism for granting favors or legalizing faits accomplis. Otherwise, we risk turning the logic of planning on its head: Instead of development being adapted to development plans, planning decisions are adapted to the wishes of particular private individuals.”
Warehouses turned into a supermarket
The report documents numerous cases in which buildings were completed without planning permission, with applicants subsequently using the exceptions process to seek approval.
One example involves a supermarket in Larnaca district operating from premises licensed for use as warehouses.
The auditor general’s findings show that the development had operated without authorization as a supermarket in an industrial zone for about 10 years, rather than as a warehouse. Applications to change its use had been rejected, and three enforcement notices had been served for breaches of the original planning permit’s conditions.
Almost all the relevant departments had also opposed granting planning permission. Nevertheless, the Council for Planning Exceptions, known as SYMEPA, recommended that the Cabinet approve a temporary permit, subject to conditions and compensatory measures, to allow time for the business to relocate.
Notably, although no planning permit has been issued for reasons attributable to the applicant, the supermarket appears to have remained in operation up to the date of the special report’s publication.
Such practices risk creating an impression that unauthorized developments are tolerated, undermining compliance and encouraging similar violations.
Homes outside development boundaries
The report also presents numerous cases of homes granted planning permission through the exceptions process in protection zones, agricultural zones, and areas outside designated development boundaries.
In one case, SYMEPA reconsidered the matter and unanimously recommended approval of two applications. In its reasoned recommendations to the Cabinet, it said it had taken into account that the developments did not affect the overall strategy of the applicable development plan, as the plot adjoined a residential zone and would not contribute to further scattered development.
“The extent to which this mechanism is used for individual homes outside development boundaries reinforces these concerns,” the auditor general states.
“Between 2020 and 2023, of the 633 applications examined, 259 concerned individual homes, and 139 of those were approved. In other words, about four in 10 applications concerned a recurring category of development. That frequency raises a reasonable question as to whether a recurring problem can continue to be treated as a ‘special case.’”
Conversion into a hotel
Another case concerns an application in Famagusta district for planning permission, through the exceptions process, for additions and alterations to an existing tourist apartment complex and a change of use to a hotel.
SYMEPA decided by majority vote to recommend that the Cabinet grant planning permission, subject to appropriate terms, conditions and compensatory measures.
However, the audit found that no planning permit had been issued as of April 2025. Nor was any evidence found showing whether the conditions imposed had been met.
Despite the absence of planning permission, the development continued operating and remains in operation to this day.
