Furthermore, these measures not only do not fulfill their purpose – e.g. upgrading buildings, reducing coverage – but ultimately lead to a host of problems, such as increasing property values, worsening the housing problem, creating a wave of single-family home demolitions, and more.
And they lead to the enrichment of the beneficiaries, at the expense of the public interest. The final decision, however, will be made by the Plenary to which the case is referred.
The decision came after the appeal of the Municipality of Alimos and the Quality of Life Committee of the municipality appealed against a building permit (Eth Department, rapporteur Theodoros Aravanis).
The permit to which the appeal concerns used a combination of various height and building factor bonuses given by the New Building Regulations (NOK), ultimately leading to the construction of an 8-storey building with a height of 25.9 meters (compared to 17 m that applies in the area) and 969 sq.m. (versus 820 sq.m., based on the rate applicable in the area).
In the rationale of the decision, all the arguments of the Ministry of Environment are deconstructed one by one, while issues such as polynomial and the ongoing degradation of the concept of urban planning.
Examining whether it is permissible for the municipality to challenge a decision of a municipal body, the Council of State makes a realistic impression of how the system of issuing building permits has evolved in our country. As stated in the reasoning of the decision, in reality a building permit is not issued by the building service, “but automatically by the electronic system of TEE e-adeies on the initiative and “responsibility” of a private engineer or technical company, after the electronic submission of a file, without the intervention of the YMCA (…) The inadequacy of the legality control exercised by the YMCA and the municipality is aggravated by the fact that not even the central administration exercises a substantial control on the issued building permits (…). The lack of control is aggravated by the fact that the necessary administrative acts have not been issued for the organization and operation of basic control bodies, such as the YMOD and the “Built Environment Observatories”, the operation of which is necessary for the control of (including private ) of building inspectors.
Getting into the essence of the case, the SC notes that already in 2020 (decision 705/20, on the suspension of construction in the Makrygianni area) it has been decided that the calculation of the maximum height of buildings does not apply in areas where there are special decrees with specific building conditions , prior to the New Building Regulation (2012) and that these decrees were not repealed by either the current or the previous (GOK 1983) building regulation.
“An opposite interpretation, in which the NOK determines the maximum height of the country’s buildings in relation to the building factor greater than that provided for by the urban planning regime of an area, is contrary to article 24 of the Constitution, which mandates the urban planning of settlements after a study of the local conditions and the physiognomy of each region with the participation of the relevant OTA and interested citizens. It does not allow the general decree and without a scientific study to abolish, by decree, the special structuring conditions that had been established for each region”, it is emphasized.
Regarding the bonus factor for reducing the coverage of a building on the plot, it states that “with these arrangements, which are direct and horizontal in nature and lack study, the overall building and residential density (inhabitants/surface unit) is increased and altered the character of settlements with special urban planning decrees” and concludes that compensations cannot be given in favor of the individual and at the expense of the whole: “It is not constitutionally permissible to seek compensations against the deterioration of specific building conditions and restrictions, which is judged, according to the above, for each term independently. It is not understood, after all, to provide the private builder with compensations that entail a burden on the residents and in general on the other inhabitants of the settlement”.
It states that the incentives provided must be proportionate “in the sense that they must not lead to the enrichment of the beneficiaries and be of a mild form (eg exemption from transfer taxes, ENFIA)”.
Chios: Unspeakable tragedy with three little girls – They were recovered dead from a shipwreck [βίντεο]
Shock in Thessaloniki: A minor reported his father’s abuse to his mother
Government sources in SYRIZA for Tempi: Those campaigning on the tragedy speak
Thessaloniki: 68-year-old guilty for the death of his 4-year-old grandson – He had fallen from the tractor he was driving
30% subsidy for photovoltaics in the field – Step by step the process
#Real #estate #Bombshell #CoE #bonus #building #heights