Home Economy An important decision for off-plan construction

An important decision for off-plan construction

0
An important decision for off-plan construction

The recent decision of the Council of Ministers 176/2023 is not at all an unfavorable change to unplanned construction. On the contrary, this is a return to legality and a reminder of the need to comply with current legislation, according to which unplanned development is allowed only in areas overlooking the common territory (street).

It is known that unplanned areas are not intended for construction or tourist exploitation. However, on many of our islands, with the connivance of the state, the natural environment is being destroyed, as local authorities issue “certificates” that rural roads and paths are considered municipal and, thus, a number of sites “become” suitable for development or transferred illegally.

Most of the buildings that appear in these off-plan areas are clearly not owned by small owners, as the author of the 21/3 article “The Big Upheaval in off-plan development” “worries” is, but are luxury vacation homes. or large tourist groups, as he mentions in the continuation of his article. Often these are huge and exorbitant investments for our islands, which, moreover, do not leave any profit for the local population, but only waste and consumption of natural resources.

Unfortunately, the state has not yet realized that large-scale unplanned construction with the opening of new roads and the expansion of urban networks, which is not provided for by the territorial plan, leads to environmental degradation and significant energy costs. cargo. When will the state decide to act in an organized manner on the basis of a general plan for identifying 2 residential areas and tourism development zones that will take into account the natural and cultural features of this place?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against decision 369/2018 of the Piraeus Administrative Court of Appeal. Decision D.Ef.Pir. was released following a request for annulment by the Hellenic Society for Environment and Culture (ELLET). At the same time, the Administrative Court of Appeal annulled the permit for the construction of a two-story building in an unplanned stadium, in the Luginou area of ​​Patmos, on the grounds that the disputed stadium did not have a legally valid public place (street). An appeal against this decision, which was subsequently filed by the recipient of the building permit, was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The case was handled on behalf of ELLET by lawyer Giorgos I. Politis, who stated: “A key element of the decision of the Supreme Court (Sb.) 176/2023 is that the presence of a person in a public place (st.) is required since 1985 and the minimum field area is not enough . For many years (since at least 1986) the Court has ruled that areas outside the city plan “… are by their nature intended for agricultural, etc. exploitation, and not for urban (building) such…” (StE (All) .) 695/1986) has since consistently retained this position (see Supreme Court (All) 3135/2002 etc.). In addition, according to the Court, “… exclusively permitted development in these areas … is subject to the basic rule of structuring urban planning legislation in general, according to which plots, a person, a common border are built, i.e. on a legally existing common area that did not arise from a private will, … Alternatively, it would be possible to build on territories outside the plan on terms more favorable than the above points of view, even those that apply in areas within the framework of the plan “” [ΣτΕ (Τμ. Ε΄ 7μελής) 3504/2010 κ.ά.]. Thus, this is not a “big upheaval in unscheduled construction” and not a “blow” to small (or large) owners. Based on any logic, the territory cannot be considered as the sum of the plots. The institution of unplanned development remains an anachronistic and destructive choice, which over time nullifies all efforts to rationally plan space and protect the environment and landscape. Obviously, various, transitional, special or exceptional provisions, many deviations, arbitrary “interpretations” on the part of the building services, etc. do not constitute “legal certainty”. The priority of off-plan development provisions is a first-class development option in harmony with the need to protect the country’s natural and cultural environment.

* Mr. Yiannis Michael is Vice President of ELLET.
** Ms. Eleni Maistro is the President of the ELLET Architectural Heritage Council.

Author: YANNIS MICHAEL*, ELENI MAISTRU**

Source: Kathimerini

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here