Following the urgent meeting of the Council of the Municipality of Syros Ermoupolis on 28.11.2025 and what was heard there and in view of the upcoming meeting of 12.12.2025 where the Municipality’s comments on the proposed scenarios of the Syros Local Urban Plan will be finalized, the Observatory sent, to the Municipality, the contractor and the monitoring committee of the ELP’ study, its observations and comments as well as additional proposals – supplementary to those already submitted in the 5-day consultation.
The issue of the Local Spatial Plan is particularly serious and will largely determine the course of Syros. It is one of the few opportunities to stop, to some extent, the speculative invasion of real estate (especially in relatively undeveloped or even virgin areas) which is «eating away the flesh» of our island and undermining the future of future generations.
We urge our fellow citizens to be vigilant and to pressure the Municipality so that the proposals it will formulate do not hand over land and water to large or small interests, destroying what has been saved from the environment to date.
The observations, comments and supplementary proposals submitted by the Observatory are as follows:
No. of Reference: 493
Date: 08.12.2025
To:
1. Municipality of Syros Ermoupolis
Mayor Mr. Alexandros Athanasiou
Chairperson of the Municipality’s Council Ms. Theodora Kartanou
Municipal Councilors
YDOM Syros Ermoupolis
2. Contractor of the Syros LPS study
ROIKOS S.A. – ENVECO S.A.
3. LPS Monitoring Committee
Ms. Maria Rokou
Mr. Panagiotis Syfalakis
Ms. Evangelia Sakellario
Subject: Additional proposals, observations and comments of EQOS on the Syros Local Urban Plan following the meeting of the Municipal Council of the Municipality of Syros Ermoupolis on 28.11.2025.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Following the urgent meeting of the Council of the Municipality of Syros Ermoupolis on 28.11.2025 on the topic “Discussion and decision-making on the submission of proposals by the Municipality of Syros Ermoupolis on the scenarios of the local urban plan of Syros Ermoupolis” and in view of the upcoming meeting on 12.12.2025 where the Municipality’s observations on the second proposed scenario will be finalized, we are sending you attached some of our observations, comments and proposals on the occasion of what was heard at the meeting.
We kindly ask you to take them into account and consider them as complementary to the proposals that we submitted to the public consultation and to the Municipality with our letter with ref. no. 490/26.11.2025.
We watched the meeting online with great attention. We provide a link for quick access to the video, as we will refer to some of its points below:
First of all, a protest to the chairperson of the Municipal Council.
We express our protest because there was a selective treatment of the proposals submitted to the Municipality by the collective bodies, namely, the Association of Engineers of the Prefecture of Cyclades, the Cyclades Prefectural Committee of the T.E.E. and the Environmental Quality Observatory of Syros. While the proposals of the first two bodies were read, verbatim, during the meeting, the Observatory’s proposals were not only not read but were not even briefly mentioned. The chairwoman, Ms. Th. Kartanou, considered it self-evident that our proposals would not be read when the Secretary of the Municipal Council, Mr. P. Chrysafides, asked whether they would be read like those of the other bodies. The chairwoman limited herself to saying that our proposals have been sent to the Municipal Councillors and that they are available for consultation for anyone who wants to see them…. (However, the same applies to the proposals of the Association of Engineers) [see video at 1:40:50].
During the participatory planning of the LPS (current phase), all proposals from organizations and individuals should be heard and evaluated. We are confident that the LPS contractors do indeed listen to and take into account all proposals submitted (as is evident from their presentation and their clarifications during the meeting). However, it is particularly important that they are also heard and evaluated by our fellow citizens in order to form an opinion, which opinion they may wish to express during the next stages of the consultation. It is known, after all, that an informed citizen is a useful citizen, especially on such a crucial issue for the course of our country. The silencing, essentially, of a –large for the island’s data- environmental collective body does not serve the information of our fellow citizens. On the contrary, it achieves their one-sided information. Only the voices that have access to public microphones and local media are heard, while as is widely known, the Observatory is not included in them.
We wonder, what is the reason that the Chairwoman – formally and rapporteur of the issue – refused to present our proposals – even in the context of equal treatment of collective bodies-? Was it because in the field of off-plan construction our proposals differed from the expressed positions of the two factions of the majority, as well as of the Engineers and the committee of engineers of the T.E.E.? Or is it because of our proposals regarding the operation of Neorio, with which Ms. Kartanou is professionally associated as a lawyer? Or is it both?
Allow us to clarify that the Environmental Quality Observatory of Syros has 478 (today) members, among whom are people of all social groups and political shades. There are “small landowners”, “large landowners” and “landless people”; there are scientists, technicians, farmers, those employed in the tourism sector, freelancers, civil servants, doctors, professors, teachers and so on. The glue that binds all of these people is their love for the environment and their significant concern for the exposure of all of us to uncontrolled pollution. All of these people have agreed on a statutory framework which we adhere to the letter. All our interventions in the public sphere are made without taking into account individual private interests of individual members or groups, but with the broader common good and our statutory principles always in mind.Regarding our proposals for the LPS, we point out that the Observatory’s force, includes engineers (freelancers and civil servants), environmentalists, geotechnicians, lawyers, etc., who make a special effort so that our proposals are balanced, technocratic, documented, free from vested interests, withstand criticism and, above all, are beneficial to society as a whole.
Our Observations, Notes and Supplementary Proposals.
1. The objectives of the LPS and potential conflicts of interest
Mr Mayor stated that: “Our objective is clear: to protect the environment and the special landscapes of the island, but at the same time not to undermine everyday life, small properties and the potential for development of the local economy”.
No one could disagree with these objectives, and for this very reason we will try to highlight some aspects of the emerging proposal of the Municipality, but also of the Engineers and the Committee of the TEE, which, if adopted, will operate, primarily, for the benefit of profit-making or other interests, causing irreparable damage to the environment, that is, undermining precisely these objectives.
Protecting the environment and the special landscapes of the island, seems to be a goal of the Mayor (at least according to his statements). However, the “environment” is not an abstract concept. The environment, as defined by Law 1650/1986, is: “Environment: The set of natural and anthropogenic factors and elements that interact and affect the ecological balance, the quality of life, the health of the inhabitants, the historical and cultural tradition and the aesthetic values”. It is therefore clear that when we talk about the environment, man has a central role, and it would be good to take into account all its aspects in our plans.
The environment is already receiving a terrifying speculative attack and brutal degradation on most of the Cyclades islands. Although Syros is not Mykonos, Paros, or Santorini, it has all the specifications to be the next “fillet” and rather soon. The rate of environmental degradation on Syros is exponential. If the LPS does not institute drastic measures and restrictions, a significant opportunity to slow the destruction will be lost.
2. On the forecast of population growth and housing needs.
One of the key assumptions on which we are called upon to “build” the LPS is the forecast for population change in the coming years. It is obvious that this number affects all aspects of the LPS (housing needs, infrastructure, need for quality of life, environment, etc.).
We heard Mr. Mayor say that the island’s population will approximately double in the next 20 years (see video 00:25:20). We understand that the study team also accepts this – it calculates with mathematical models.
We consider that this forecast is completely unfounded and is not based on existing data or on the recorded historical change in the island’s population. Mathematical models give results depending on the assumptions taken as a basis. If the possibility of uncontrolled, spatially, addition of “beds” for seasonal tourists (small and large hotels, houses, villas, etc.) is triggered, it is only through the LPS that such prediction could be verified.
Regarding the permanent population, the trend is downward, as recorded in the last census of 2021. In addition, public sector employees are also decreasing. In the first stage of the study of the Economic and Social Policy for Industry, a significant decrease in employment is recorded also in manufacturing between 2000-2020 (average annual decrease of -13.2%). More generally, there is not the slightest indication on the horizon of an increase in the permanent population for the time horizon that the LPS is intended to cover. Rather, the opposite is beginning to become apparent. Already in the last ten years (2011-2021) there has been no increase in the population, but a decrease of -1.8% (from 21,507 inhabitants to 21,124).
Regarding the peak population of the tourist season, this is a figure that should be related to the carrying capacity of the island and not exclusively to desires, political decisions and speculative tendencies, which attempt to impose the institutionalization of the doctrine “we build everywhere on particularly attractive terms”. The reliable prediction of the peak population after 15 years, with mathematical models, in advance, without taking into account the terms and uses that the LPS will institutionalize is rather unsubstantiated.
The goal cannot be to want 20,000 additional residents of the 10-day period divided into “plots” of 4, or 8, or 12 or whatever acres, on every inch of land on the island [note: in the currently being institutionalized ECP for Tourism, Ermoupolis is listed as a control area (red)]. Who can imagine that the “beds” (in houses, villas, rooms, hotels, etc.) of the entire island will double and that the new buildings will be planted mainly in the areas outside the plan? Who can argue, even if they do not take into account the aesthetic and environmental destruction, that this is sustainable? How will the need for new, extensive, public infrastructure be addressed when the anarchic distribution of construction destroys the possibility of developing effective public infrastructure without incalculable costs? While even these same infrastructures will further degrade and alter the environment (excavations, road construction, electricity grid and PPC poles, etc.). If indeed the forecast for the increase in the peak population is true, then it becomes imperative for the LPS to slow down, as much as it can, the destruction.
The greater common interest must prevail over petty interests. The LPS is one of those tools that, de facto, will influence the trends of change in the peak population. Whether it is drawn up exclusively according to the rules of science with the aim of the development of the place and the well-being of its inhabitants within a sustainable environment or whether it is drawn up simply to legitimize distorted practices in order not to harm petty interests, and mainly large interests of uncontrolled speculation, destroying the island is what will set the tone.
3. It is imperative that some pieces of land remain undeveloped.
The representative of the study group, Ms. Papadima, speaking about the peninsulas of the coastal area in the southwestern part of Syros (Viglostasi, Charasonas, Glaronta, etc.) – areas that have been proposed by the study to be CTD 5 – Controlled Tourist Development (“deep purple”), stated that (see video at 2:04:40):
“for these areas the study proposes a limit of 8 acres for a 100 square meter residence and for accommodations a limit of 16 acres and only for high-class accommodation. These are what are proposed for the CTD 5 and they are proposed with this reasoning: it is an area that has no commitments from either the existing ZOE, or from the natural protection area that exists institutionalized on the island, it is an area that cannot be used for the primary sector, it is an area that does not show geological unsuitability and it is an area that cannot welcome any other productive activity, so in order not to remain a simple landscape protection area, something minimal was proposed for its utilization in the logic of connecting it with the rest of the tourist development. If this is not desirable because we have indeed seen several reactions on this, we are happy for it to be characterized as a Landscape PEP, it will simply limit the areas where tourist accommodations can be located, and we have no objections. “
In our view, this approach is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption, namely that every inch of land on the island should be exploited – mainly for speculative reasons. That means that, the entire island is potentially a plot of land waiting to be built on. We should also take into account that such an approach to the spatial planning of an entire island – especially for the areas that have managed to remain relatively protected from real estate speculation to date – may conflict with constitutional imperatives. As the Council of State has ruled: “from the combination of articles 24 par. 1 and 2 and 17 of the Constitution, a fundamental differentiation is deduced, in terms of building capacity, between the areas within the plan, which are intended for building, and the areas outside the plan, which are not intended, in principle, for building or tourist exploitation, but for agricultural, livestock and forestry exploitation and public recreation”.
Especially for the areas mentioned by Ms. Papadima, it is not certain that agricultural, livestock or forestry exploitation can be excluded by definition in the future, while “public recreation” also has (or should have) particular importance. The possibility of being able to find oneself on a small piece of land without buildings, “in the nature” of the island, is and will be a recreational opportunity, invaluable and particularly rare. Even “tourists” do not only need to sleep, but they also need space to breathe, visit, admire, connect, feel… It is certain that tourism will prove to be the most sensitive sector of the economy to the destruction of the landscape. Places that have preserved parts of nature untouched are certain to be profitable in the future, also in the tourism sector.
In our opinion, we have a historical obligation to save “what is saved” from the speculative onslaught. We have a historical obligation to leave something unbuilt for future generations. They also have the right to walk in virgin – unbuilt places, in nature, just as we walked. The logic of “we use all natural resources today and for our benefit” undermines future generations.
4. The peninsulas of Glarontas, Viglostasi (& South Komito), Charasonas.
For these areas, alternative scenario 2 proposes that they be CTD 5 – controlled tourist development with a maximum of 8 acres for 100 square meters of housing and 16 acres for accommodation and only for high-class accommodation. Especially for Charasonas, a landscape protection area is also proposed next to CTD 5.
It seems that all opinions converge on the fact that these are areas of special Cycladic natural beauty, relatively “untouched” or even “virgin”, inaccessible and with a geomorphology that does not refer to “plots”. In many places there are large slopes and generally end in unique steep coasts.
In such a landscape, the construction of hotels and villas with their swimming pools – because it is obvious that only such will be built there, after all, this study also intends to locate tourist accommodations there – and the necessary accompanying infrastructure, even with the specifications of 8 or 16 acres, will brutally alter the landscape. The feeling one gets is radically different if one finds oneself in an unstructured landscape compared to one, even if sparsely, structured.
In this case, the construction will not serve the housing needs of the residents (“small owners”) in the slightest, but only the speculation of all kinds of “investors”. Which small owner will go and build a 100 square meter “tsardi” (GR expression for house) next to the crow’s nests in inaccessible areas without infrastructure to live in? On the contrary, these types of areas are a breeding ground for speculation.
Ms. Papadima’s aversion that there have been several reactions and that, if desired, they would be happy to designate these areas as Landscape PEPs is particularly important and in principle we applaud it.
Even Mr. Mayor, in the initial proposals he presented, states that the areas of Glarontas, Viglostasi (South of Komito), although proposed as mild tourist development, are inaccessible areas, with exceptional geomorphology and asks that they be designated as Landscape Protection Areas and that tourist use should be excluded, a position which we, in principle, applaud.
However, we believe that we should go a small step further and that these areas (Glarontas, Viglostasi, Charasonas) be institutionalized as building prohibition zones. Only agricultural activities and public recreation could be envisaged for these areas. Especially for the Charasonas area, the proposed Landscape PEP (with a slanted line) proposed by the study should also be characterized as a zone of complete building prohibition and constitute a single, protected from building ensemble up to the steep coasts of the area and the sea.
We say that there is no reason not to prohibit building in these areas. The fact that even today, building is formally prohibited there, given that public space (road) doesn’t legally exists in those areas and does not arise from private will [Court of Appeal 176/2023] that could allow buildability to land in the area (therefore, owners are not affected since they already do not have the right to build today) makes the decision even easier.
5. A few more words about the Charasonas area.
We were particularly surprised when we heard from the Councillor for Tourism, Mr. G. Voutsinos, that there is already tourist activity in Charasonas, given that there are no legally existing roads in the area that face the stadiums, while, until a few years ago, only crows flew in the area.
Mr. Voutsinos said, addressing the researchers (see video 2:08:30):
“You have characterized as a Landscape Development Plan an area of Charasonas in which a huge investment has already begun over the last 20 years, by a family that lives here, that is, a family that did not come to take its money and leave in September as some investors do. We are now limiting this investment with this local urban planning and the Glarontas area has been designated as a controlled tourist development area, which is a registered point, a point of interest for Galissas, that I could not think that something would be built there. It would alter the entire beauty of the settlement”.
Mr. Voutsinos, acting (well) as a defender of Galissas – this is reasonable given that he comes from Galissas, while his relatives also develop business activities there – states that “I could not think that something would be built there. It would alter the entire beauty of the settlement”.
We completely agree!
On the other hand, he does not seem to have the same sensitivities for the Charasonas area. On the contrary, the alteration of the landscape of particular natural beauty in Charasonas, not only leaves him indifferent but he considers it to be the right of a family, putting himself in the position of the advocate of the investment, that is, putting forward the private interests of the family.
Even if we accept – something that we confess that we do not know – that there is already some tourist activity (legally structured or illegally, it does not matter) it does not mean that the right of a family or anyone else to alter – destroy through construction, once and for all, the area has been justified. It is inconceivable that the planning of the future of Syros should be based on the intentions of private individuals who are trying to impose the cementation and destruction of areas of particular natural beauty in order to gain financial benefits.
We were pleased to hear Ms. Papadima (see video 2:13:30) state that according to the official information received by the study team from the competent services, there is currently no plan in progress for the Charasonas area. This means that the strategic investment plan that had been put up for consultation for the “Development of a Complex Tourist Accommodation in the Charasonas location of Syros with a Hotel with a total capacity of 166 beds and 69 furnished tourist residences” has possibly been rejected, as citizens massively requested by submitting their proposals to the relevant consultation.
Citizens, in general, do not have access to public microphones and therefore do not have the privilege of having their opinions heard. Thus, one-sided opinions are usually heard in public debate. Opposing opinions are silenced. In the case of Charasonas, citizens had the opportunity to speak and did so by submitting their comments to the relevant “consultation” on the “strategic investment”.
Despite the fact that it was a sham “consultation”, which was attempted to be carried out in secret by ENTERPRISE GREECE, as soon as citizens were informed, they submitted their comments en masse. Despite the fact that ENTERPRISE GREECE also closed the process of submitting comments by citizens before the deadline that it had set itself and immediately completely disappeared the relevant page of the specific candidate “strategic investment” with the comments that were submitted, leaving behind a “404 page not found”, we managed to save the comments that had been submitted until shortly before their disappearance (372 comments). We are attaching these comments so that the study team can take into account the opinion of the citizens (and not just what certain people like to imagine what citizens want).
The comments submitted until 09:12 on 28.05.2025 can be read here (GR)
6. Apano Meria (NATURA area)
The LPS has the possibility of integration with full justification of proposals in the Special Environmental Studies (SMEs) (p. 8, opening presentation).
Mr. Mayor requested “the full integration of the proposals of the NATURA study, so that the island is treated as a whole, with an integrated approach to landscape and ecosystem protection” despite the fact that at the time of the Special Environmental Studies (SMEs) consultation, Mr. Mayor had blasted the proposals of the researchers.
However, Mr. Mayor immediately rushed to clarify “so that there are no misunderstandings”, that: “we do not mean to incorporate this “bad” study that was presented in 2022 into the consultation, we mean the one that results from the Municipality’s proposals… with all these changes that we have requested, this study not the old one – we are not implying the NATURA study as it initially appeared by the researchers… You cannot have 45% of the island in NATURA status and a population that will double in the next 20 years, squeezing it into the southern part of the island” (see video 00:24:25)
Mr. Mayor, and not only him, is quick to characterize a remarkable effort made by the SMEs 8a study team as a “bad study” because it would put a fundamental brake on uncontrolled construction. The notion that there can be no needs (the population will approximately double in 20 years (!) said the Mayor) and that it cannot be squeezed into the southern side of the island is absolutely absurd, unscientific and populist. There is no squeezing into such a large area of southern Syros, unless someone has in mind, as an unnegotiable rule, the right, es ae, outside the building plan anywhere in Syros, and specifically, per 4 acres, in order for a number of “peak season residents” to build the house and swimming pool of their dreams “anywhere” on the island. If the forecast for the doubling of the population is considered reliable and desirable, then for the housing needs there should be a reasonable expansion of the settlements and/or other provisions that will not destroy Syros forever.
We do not know if the Mayor knows anything about the outcome of the Special Environmental study for Apano Meria and, above all, whether any modifications have been made to the study as initially presented by the consultants in accordance with the wishes of the Municipality. However, he asks for the incorporation of the Municipality’s proposals “the good study”. In the event of incorporation, we ask that our own proposals as submitted to the Special Environmental Studies (SMEs) consultation be taken into account. Our proposals can be found here (GR)
7. The 150-meter isohypses.
Ms. Papadima stated that the Landscape PEPs concern mountain peaks, above an isohypse of 150 meters (and as such the Glarontas area is not included but they will happily include it in the protection areas if desired by the local community) (see video 2:15:50).
It is obvious that the beauty of the landscape and the need for its protection is not limited to contours above 150 meters. Landscapes below these contours, especially on the islands, also need protection. For example, landscapes that end in rocky, lacy and inaccessible coasts should also be protected and remain undeveloped and inaccessible (without road openings).
8. Buildability in areas outside the urban plan.
• The Mayor’s suggestion
Mr. Mayor, during his oral presentation, suggested: “Maintaining the integrity of 4 acres, this was heard by everyone last week, because otherwise we exclude all small owners from any future use of their property”.
His written suggestion was more detailed: “Maintaining the integrity of 4 acres is considered necessary as the deviations from the integrity of plots of land with an area of less than 4000 sq m have already been abolished. In any case, it is imperative to maintain the integrity of 4000 sq m, as a deviation, after the institutionalization of the LPS”.
• Our view on the proposal
“In our view, the ‘future use of smallholders’ properties’ for over-development (concreting) cannot constitute the primary and sole criterion for establishing buildability requirements in a scientific study. This cannot be the banner of a long-term plan that spans across generations. While this criterion should be taken into account—provided it does not form the core of the land’s future destruction—it nevertheless requires a more in-depth analysis.”
The first observation is that this argument is lame and is not accompanied by evidence that allows the long-term common interest of the elementary protection of the exponentially decreasing environmental reserve, on the one hand, and the totality of the private interests of “smallholders”, on the other.
More specifically, some basic questions should be answered in order to assess how many and how much will be affected, how many and how much will benefit and what will be the common benefit from the institutionalization of integrity in more acres (e.g. 8 acres):
- What does the word “property” mean and who falls under the term “small owner”?
- How many are affected?
- Who is favored?
- What will be the impact on the environment and the quality of life of the whole?
Trying to answer these questions, we will say that for a field – plot to constitute “property”, its legal use today, whether for construction, for sale, or for other activities, must be able to bring some profit to the owner. Even if we accept that “small owners” are currently defined as those who have 4 acres (which in our opinion is not accurate – there are many who possibly have less than 4 acres and even more who are landless), it must be precisely determined how many of them currently hold a legal right to build which they will lose if the minimum plot size for buildability is set at more than 4,000 square meters). If they do not currently have the right to build, then no ‘loss’ occurs. Today, in order to have a right to build, their plots must, among other things, have a frontage on a public space (street) that legally exists and does not arise from private will [Court of Appeal, 176/2023].
If the planners’ proposal to establish a minimum area of 8 acres for buildability is adopted as the basis for deliberation, a quantitative assessment must be conducted to identify the number of private land parcels (KAEK) with an area between 4 and 8 acres that also possess frontage on a legally existing road (excluding those situated within forest lands, watercourses, or other non-buildable zones). It is anticipated that the resulting number of ‘smallholders‘ will be found to be significantly low.
On the other hand, ‘large-scale landowners‘ (current or future) are the ones who will benefit the most, specifically in the name of ‘smallholders’ and under the pretext of their protection. The potential for speculation by real estate investors—building villas and pools on prime Cycladic land, selling, and moving on—will skyrocket. On 8 acres, which will be subdivided into two 4-acres plots, they will be able to ‘plant’ two villas instead of one; on 16 acres, four; on 32 acres, eight, and so forth.
In conclusion, establishing a low minimum plot size for buildability will primarily benefit ‘large-scale landowners‘ in a ‘Syros Monopoly.’ The dream of ‘smallholders’—especially those holding virgin, uniquely beautiful, and inaccessible land (where building is currently prohibited)—is for their land to become buildable and thus attractive to ‘large-scale landowners’ for purchase. The dream of everyone else is to prevent the total destruction of our island.
• Our Proposal
The perception that the right to off-plan building (construction outside of zoned city limits) should be taken for granted is fundamentally flawed. Unregulated off-plan development must eventually be halted and, in the interim, drastically restricted.
The 3rd alternative scenario, which stipulates a drastic reduction in off-plan building by prohibiting specific uses, imposing high subdivision limits, and abolishing all derogations (exemptions), is the one we believe should have been adopted ‘yesterday.’ At the very least, a minimum plot size of 8 acres should be established—as proposed by the study—without any derogations, alongside the designation of strictly non-buildable zones (within the framework mentioned above).
At this point, we cannot but applaud the stance taken by the head of the ‘Syros ex Archis’ municipal faction, Mr. Nikos Albanopoulos, who addressed the issue with the candor and courage demanded by the historic moment we find ourselves in. [For Mr. Albanopoulos’ statement, see video at 3:08:20]”
9. Regarding Strategic Investments (ESCHASE)
We have already stated in our proposals that the eligibility of real estate and hotel investments for “Strategic Investment” status (ESCHASE) must be immediately prohibited in Syros. The remaining natural environment of Syros is so fragile that if these activities are elevated to “strategic” status—thereby bypassing every protective safeguard—it will be destroyed within a few years. How many projects of the type “Development of a Complex Tourist Accommodation at… of Syros featuring a hotel with a total capacity of 150 beds and 80 furnished tourist residences” are needed to annihilate Apano Meria or the southern peninsulas and coastlines, or the mainland of the inland?
Consequently, we noted with great satisfaction the statement by the planning team’s representative, Ms. Papadima, who noted that for Astypalaia, Sikinos, and Folegandros, the planners have proposed—impartially and without hesitation—the prohibition of siting strategic investments (see video at 2:53:30).
We anticipate and expect them to demonstrate the same fervor for Syros.
10. Watercourses
Regarding the proposal by the Association of Planning Engineers concerning watercourses—specifically their suggestion to exclude certain sections of the hydrographic network from PEZ 4 (Watercourse Protection Zones) based on rulings by the South Aegean Water Directorate—we would like to point out that the content of these rulings bears no relevance to the proposed protection status.
These rulings consist of response documents (issued upon an engineer’s inquiry) regarding the correct recording of land parcel data on topographic diagrams. The information provided pertains to a point location on a specific parcel (a single point described by “orientation coordinates” in the GGRS ’87 system). It is not accompanied by a certified topographic map that could be cross-referenced with the mapping of Syros’s hydrographic network (HAGS maps – LPS alternative scenario maps) in a way that allows for the updating of hydrographic data. Furthermore, as explicitly defined in current legislation, even small watercourses under Article 1 of Law 4258/2014 must be preserved and protected in their natural state.
11. Agricultural land
The agricultural land of Syros is currently under multifaceted pressure (e.g., from unregulated photovoltaic installations, off-plan building, the shift toward tourism activities, etc.). However, the most significant threat is the prevailing mindset. A characteristic example is the statement by the Deputy Mayor of Tourism, Mr. G. Voutsinos (see video at 3:26:00), who remarked: “…what growth are we talking about? what agricultural policy are we talking about? farmers on the island have been reduced by half… given the existing problems, who is going to bother with the land? No one… therefore, we are heading toward tourism development.”
If, however, the remaining scarce agricultural land is not protected today, there will be no possibility for cultivation in the future (only concrete will “thrive”). It is unacceptable to choose its further shrinkage to the point where Syros cannot produce even a single head of lettuce.
The recorded trend of declining primary agricultural production (mainly the reduction of greenhouse farming) is due to a series of factors within the highly unfavorable conditions of an island environment, which is already restricted in terms of production factors. High-productivity agricultural land must be preserved in the LPS (Local Spatial Plan) as a zone where any activity other than agriculture and its necessary supporting infrastructure is prohibited. Broadly, this zone can and should include agricultural land that may not formally meet the criteria for “high-productivity” status. Mitigating the inherent island-specific constraints on the primary sector requires measures that restrict the fragmentation of rural land and promote the creation of unified, viable tracts of agricultural land.
In conclusion, the commitment of agricultural land to other uses—residential, tourist, etc.—will lead not only to a reduction in primary production and the island’s capacity for raw material self-sufficiency but also to the loss of resources and productive natural capital, resulting in particularly bleak prospects for the future.
12. Minutes 16/1996 of the Council of State – More Relevant Than Ever
On January 18, 1996, the 5th Department of the Council of State (CoS) convened to process the draft Decree titled: “Establishment of a Zonal Planning Control Area (ZOE), minimum subdivision limits, and other building terms and restrictions in areas outside the approved urban plan and outside the boundaries of pre-1923 settlements within the Municipalities of Hermoupolis and Ano Syros, and the Communities of Manna, Vari, Poseidonia, Finikas, and Galissas of the island of Syros (Cyclades Prefecture).”
The contents of these Minutes are of paramount importance for the drafting of the LPS (Local Spatial Plan) under discussion today. Their significance lies in the following:
- In essence, they constitute a formal opinion (legal advisory) of the Council of State on many aspects of the LPS, given that the current plan aims to regulate issues similar to those established by the Decree of that time.
- Today, the draft Decree for the LPS will once again be subject to the judicial review of the Council of State. Furthermore, legal challenges (appeals for annulment) against the Decree may arise.
- The positions and rationale of the Council of State regarding Syros, as documented in said Minutes, have stood the test of time, and their value has been proven. Unfortunately, various loopholes, interpretations, misinterpretations, and pressure from political and economic interests have set Syros on a destructive path, contrary to the vision envisioned by the Council of State in Its opinion.
At that time, the Council of State (CoS) addressed many of the contentious points that have been raised in the public debate regarding the Local Spatial Plan (LPS). The issues it highlighted then are even more relevant and more urgent today than they were at the time. In essence, it pointed the way that we should have followed.
We submit these Minutes as attachments.
[Here are Minutes 16/1996 of the Council of State in electronic format – GR]
We thank you for your attention
Regards,
For the Board of Directors
The president
Iasonas-Ioannis Mihos
Τhe secretary
Nikoleta Tzortzi
