A tsunami of building has left the state unprepared

We read and hear a good deal about the shenanigans of sudden property developers springing up especially during the ‘boom years’ from the early 2000s until 2013, but very little about the state’s role in this crisis nor its subsequent, mainly, hands off follow up under the pretence of not becoming involved in private/commercial contracts.

Although their role varied from district to district in intensity, there are common factors, followed by a reluctance to assist in simplifying procedures to lubricate the constipated administrative system.

Things were particularly bad in Famagusta district, swamped by the tsunami of town planning and building permit applications in the early 2000s, dished up by farmers-cum-developers and the pressure to build, finish, get paid and do the next field.

The authorities were grossly understaffed and ill prepared for this torrent. For obvious reasons the processing of applications took precedence over inspections and site checks. Many projects were commenced before approvals were issued and often the approval did not match the scheme as it came to be built. Changes were generated by the demands of buyers, of ‘off plan’ projects, where developers were saying ‘yes’ to any request for a change, just to get a contract signed and a deposit paid. Then there were changes arising during construction, including the building of ‘extra’ houses!

With state unable or unwilling to staff up, the obvious developer response to avoid protracted delays to construction was to ‘get on with it and fix it later’. Much of this went unseen and much of it unseen for quite a while, actually until an approval certificate was required.

At this point, all the anomalies spilled out, and in one way or another created various obstructions to progress towards title or the quality of the title itself. For a very short period, the issue of a certificate for unauthorised works gave some flexibility until certain Town Planning departures prevented the issue of transferable titles.

However, there is a level of changes, even on estate developments (usually processed under a **single** permit) that are so trivial and inconsequential in Town Planning terms that are also gumming up the works, taking years to resolve and often ‘contaminating’ other compliant properties on that same project.

This is just plain dumb. Let me give a single example that explains what I mean. It concerns two of the houses on a development of 19 similar houses built in 2005. The in-house agent responded to a prospective buyer’s comment about the bedrooms being rather small (three of them) by suggesting a two-bedroomed, two-bath roomed internal layout change. These were sketched up on the plan and both buyers agreed that that would be satisfactory.

In the event, the internal change (nothing visible from the outside and the two houses indistinguishable from the style of the others and no change in the plot size or position) resulted in a 2sqm reduction in covered area. When titles were not forthcoming an enquiry to planning authority revealed that an application would be required because these were no longer ‘Type C’ houses! 

An application was duly made. After two years it was refused. The Town Plan had changed, and the floor area was now in excess of that permitted in the new Town Plan, by 2sqm. Had it been only 1sqM, it could have been permitted. The application was submitted for a hierarchical appeal to the Council of Ministers. Yes, I’m serious, for a single square metre of extra floor space on two houses in a development of 19, the application had to be referred to the Council of Ministers.

The Council of Ministers was mercifully speedy. It only took eight months for a response. They could not consider this application because it had not been made under Article 90. That was done, advertised and paid for and a little over two years has now passed. Nothing has happened.

Had an application been made in 2005 by the developer, this may never have occurred, but the developer wanted, not unnaturally to bundle all the various changes into one application “at the end”. Well, it didn’t happen and now the buyer(s) is left with the problem of dealing with a non-issue through a system that cannot differentiate between important matters and ‘chaff’.

These are the kinds of things that in a serious country can be dealt with by an individual officer over a certain level of seniority with a simple letter of approval, because a matter such as this can block or contaminate the title process for every house on that estate.

Needless to say, not one of the 19 houses has a title deed and not just because of the case described. There are two other houses that do not have a valid approval, but they too show the point, the compliant houses on the development are stuffed too. The original application was for the estate and that is what has to be brought into compliance.

Philip Beardwood, Paralimni