The 20% increase and its side effects
This government, a few months ago, in order to introduce a simple procedure to cover illegalities relating to the building extent and referring to houses/apartments, has introduced a new regulation which allows the owners/buyers to increase the building density prevailing at the time of construction by 20% or up to a minimum of 60 sq.m. (applications are accepted if submitted by 31.12.2019).
This is indeed a good measure and what is more important is that owners/buyers may apply for the increased density and planning application without going through the developer/registered owner or the other co-owners and neighbours. This is on the one hand good since the owners are not held to ransom by the developer/ registered owner, etc. On the other hand the planning authority has no information whether the project and other buyers have an objection. As such, we have the case where one house built an additional floor blocking the views of the property at the rear, whereas another carried out an extension to the living room, blocking the living room (terraced units) of the neighbour. This cannot be correct and whereas one project is developed with certain parameters, it takes just a few people to spoil it. This creates problems mainly for the neighbours but for others as well who are in the immediate vicinity.
A difficult situation to planning authority should solve, but in my opinion ask the neighbours and the the registered owners/investors on their reaction on the application for extension – not necessarily to take them into account, but to bear in mind on its decision. In addition, apartment buildings have all sorts of odd aesthetics in terms of appearance with several verandahs being covered and used as living space, whereas the addition of bedrooms increases the number of residents to the extent in some cases, that the common services provided cannot cope (lift, parking, etc).
Obviously, there is no easy solution and the covering up of illegalities is a good measure to an extent. That has been adopted in other countries, such as Italy, Spain, Greece, etc. with each country adopting its own methodology of application.
I suggest that those who want to take advantage of this “opportunity” must pay a visit to the local Planning Office, in order to ascertain exactly what they can benefit. In the past, this measure was allowed subject to compensation paid to the local authority, but having said that this system was not successful due to the elongated time required and of course the cost. Now, the situation is quite different, but the “free for all” benefit goes to the other extreme.
We use usually the U.K. as an example for correct procedures and note that in a country which is strict in getting a permit, it is most relaxed and understanding during execution and title issue. If our authorities were more efficient in the replies and not being so one-sided and narrow-minded in most occasions, we could have addressed this situation more efficiently and to the benefit of all (neighbours included).
In this country, with our limited building industry history which does not follow the market changes, it is correct that we follow the various “advanced” European countries, but by absolutely adopting them we forget that the civil service of those countries have a different attitude in general.
The recent change of the building law regarding the verandahs (covered), not to measure in the building density, have increased from 20% to 25% of the size of the unit and this is good news. But then, our suggestion to increase the corridor width not to measure in the building density, say up to 2.0m. width (so that two people can pass each other in the corridor, in addition to allow handicapped people to get past) has not been adopted. I wonder why this is, when in the other European countries, the width of a common corridor is not an issue. What is odd, is that the Members of the Planning Board, which is represented by civil servants from all sorts of background (Ministries of Agriculture, Finance, etc) who have no clue on the subject, are there as “the supreme body” taking decisions on the building industry, whereas the advisor of the government in technical matters (ETEK) is run again by governmental employees.
We are getting better and improving, but not with the speed that it is required leaving us, again, behind of market conditions and demand.