The planning power that should stay local

Co-ownership of immovable property often creates a difficult planning impasse. What happens when an owner has a lawful right to develop their property, but one or more co-owners do not consent to the submission of the planning application? The requirement for unanimity may, in certain circumstances, mean the right to development effectively cannot be exercised. It is precisely this difficulty that section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Law seeks to address. It is a special provision which, subject to specific conditions, permits an application for planning permission to be submitted without the consent of all co-owners. It is not a mechanism for circumventing the proprietary rights of third parties. Rather, it seeks to balance an owner’s right to make lawful use of their property against the need to protect the amenities and rights of the remaining co-owners. The provision covers, inter alia, cases where the development concerns a part of immovable property which clearly corresponds to the applicant’s share by virtue of a previous permit or a distribution agreement, cases involving the exercise of a registered development right, and the development of property carrying a share in jointly owned property. Administrative guidance also addresses, subject to conditions, additions and alterations to existing buildings and interventions within limited common property. Section 90 therefore does not provide a blank cheque. The development must not adversely affect the lawful proprietary interests or amenities of the other co-owners. Proprietary rights continue to be governed by the Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) Law, Cap. 224. The planning process cannot create a proprietary right where none exists. The procedural protection afforded to co-owners is also important. Where the application is not signed by all co-owners, it must be notified to the others and, where notification is not possible, a relevant notice must be published. In cases falling within section 90(1)(a) and (c), a co-owner who considers that his amenities or lawful proprietary interests are affected may lodge an objection within thirty days. Section 90 after the reform Following the reform of local government, substantial planning control powers were transferred to the District Government Organisations (EOAs). Regulatory Administrative Act 307/2024 delegates to officers of the EOAs significant powers previously exercised within the framework of central government. In practice, an application under section 90 is submitted to and examined by the competent EOA. Section 90(5), however, provides that before the Planning Authority grants or refuses planning permission, it must seek the concurrence of the director of the Department of Town Planning and Housing. In implementing the procedure, the views of the Ministry of Interior are also sought. The Circular of 25 June 2025 further confirms the director’s substantive coordinating role in the application of section 90. The uniform application of the Law is undoubtedly legitimate. There is, however, a distinction between strategic coordination and the issuance of general guidelines, on the one hand, and retaining a requirement for the concurrence of central government in an individual application being examined by the competent EOA, on the other. Decentralisation and subsidiarity This is, in my view, where the next step in the reform should be taken. The transfer of a power to local government acquires real substance when it is accompanied by genuine responsibility for its exercise. EOAs should not merely constitute the final administrative stage of a process in which central government continues to exercise decisive influence. This position finds institutional support in the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which has been ratified by the Republic of Cyprus. Article 4 § 3 embodies the principle of subsidiarity, according to which public responsibilities should generally be exercised, in preference, by those authorities closest to the citizen, taking into account the extent and nature of the task and the requirements of efficiency and economy. In my view, following the reform of local government, the long-term retention of mandatory concurrence by central government in individual applications under section 90 is no longer justified. The director of the Department of Town Planning and Housing may retain a strategic and coordinating role, issuing general guidelines to ensure the uniform application of the law. The substantive assessment of each individual case, however, should rest exclusively with the competent EOA, which understands local planning conditions and now bears responsibility for planning permission. True decentralisation is not achieved merely by transferring the file; it is achieved by transferring responsibility and trust in the decision-making process. This is ultimately the practical application of the principle of subsidiarity and the next logical step towards mature local self-government.