A clear restriction on construction in island regions, scattered undeveloped plots within settlements of fewer than 2,000 residents, and a complete overhaul of out-of-plan building define the new landscape shaped by Greece’s urban planning reform, which is expected to begin being legislated within the next 12–18 months.

The complexity of the planning process is highlighted by numerous pending steps, as 11 successive approval stages are required before Presidential Decrees can be issued. Notably, planning studies for Mykonos and Santorini were among the first to be commissioned.

A decisive factor in the new framework is the pending recognition of public roads, which directly affects building rights: thousands of properties could lose development potential if they do not have frontage on a road officially recognized under stricter criteria. Combined with changes in minimum plot size (buildability thresholds), this becomes a key mechanism for limiting out-of-plan construction.

A central feature of the reform is the tightening of rules for out-of-plan building, with significant consequences particularly in tourist areas. On high-pressure islands, minimum plot sizes for tourism developments increase sharply—reaching up to 40 stremmas in Santorini and 30 in Mykonos (subject to revision). For residential use, thresholds are expected to range between 6–8 stremmas, significantly restricting smaller properties. Primary residences remain protected, with the minimum plot size unchanged at 4 stremmas.

Rules for Natura areas

The new regulations also extend to protected Natura 2000 zones in the South Aegean. The Ministry of Environment recently approved Special Environmental Studies for the Southern Cyclades, introducing a stricter framework for out-of-plan tourism development.

Among other provisions, a maximum capacity of 150 beds per tourist unit will apply in out-of-plan areas, depending on each region’s planning framework. On smaller islands—such as Antiparos, Schinoussa, and Paxoi—capacity is expected to range between 30 and 50 beds.

A recent legislative provision also allows, under certain conditions, for up to 20% of Natura 2000 protected areas to be urbanized, aiming to balance environmental protection with development needs. These areas cover about 28% of Greece’s land territory.

Despite criticism, the ministry argues that many of these zones are adjacent to existing settlements and urban centers—such as Ioannina, Kastoria, and Nafplio—helping relieve housing pressure for a population of roughly 470,000 residents.

Implementation timeline and concerns

In this context, meaningful progress within 2026 is considered unlikely. The most probable scenario shifts implementation of most plans to 2027—coinciding with the next election cycle, which adds uncertainty.

Market stakeholders are concerned about whether such a strict and far-reaching framework, affecting thousands of property owners across the country, can proceed without modifications in a pre-election environment. Delays or even revisions of key planning choices remain possible.

As Giorgos Stasinos notes, the real challenge is no longer drafting the studies but implementing them—through complex tender procedures and tight timelines tied to Recovery Fund financing.

Urban Planning Reform: Roads as a Decisive Factor

One of the most critical pillars of the new urban planning framework is the recognition of public roads, a process expected to fundamentally redefine the rules for building outside designated urban plans in Greece.

Until now, the practice was far more flexible. In the past, construction was even allowed without direct frontage on a road, simply by using a right of way (access through a neighboring property). Later, obtaining a building permit only required that the plot met minimum size requirements and had frontage on a road considered public—even if that road had formed informally and was certified by a municipal statement. This framework enabled widespread out-of-plan development for decades, especially in tourist areas.

However, the legal framework changed in 2003. Case law from the Council of State overturned this approach, establishing that a road providing access to a property must result from formal urban planning—not merely exist or be in use. This shift moves the emphasis from the functional existence of a road to its institutional recognition.

As part of this transition, a large-scale process is underway to map and evaluate the road network, starting with island regions (Ionian Islands, North and South Aegean).

In these areas, a full recording of roads has been carried out to create a database that will allow their formal assessment. The criteria for recognizing a road are strict and focus mainly on historical and technical documentation.

Specifically, a road must:

• Pre-date 1977
• Appear in aerial photographs from that period
• Be recorded on maps by the Hellenic Military Geographical Service
• Be confirmed through additional data, such as the Cadastre

At the same time, particular importance is placed on road width. Initial technical approaches suggest minimum widths of around 3.5 meters for residential use and 5.5 meters for professional use. However, final specifications have not yet been determined, pending the issuance of a Presidential Decree by the Ministry of Environment.

This decree—expected by the end of this year or early next—will serve as the key tool for defining the framework.

Once issued and after the mapping process is completed, authorities will proceed with the official recognition of roads, determining which meet the criteria.

The Two Conditions for Building

These developments have direct consequences for the buildability of out-of-plan properties. From now on, construction will depend on two key conditions:

1. Compatibility of land use with the urban planning framework
2. Frontage on a formally recognized public road

If either condition is not met, the property will be considered non-buildable.

Estimates suggest that if strict criteria are maintained, the percentage of roads that will be officially recognized—especially on islands—will be limited. This is largely due to the existing network consisting mainly of narrow rural roads that do not meet technical standards.

Similar issues are found in mainland Greece, particularly in areas where road networks originate from agricultural land distributions, often with widths not exceeding 2.5 meters. This broadens the impact of the new regulations beyond island regions.

Overall, road recognition is becoming a decisive factor in out-of-plan construction, with immediate implications for land markets, investments, and the ability to utilize existing properties. The transition from a lenient system to one based on strict institutional documentation is creating a new landscape, where a significant portion of previously buildable land is now under reassessment.

A Major Urban Planning Reform

This urban planning overhaul is one of the most extensive spatial and planning reforms in Greece in recent decades and is expected to shape the country’s structure for the next 20–30 years.

Despite its importance, its scope and impact have not yet been fully understood by either society or the business community.

At the core of this strategy are around 250 Local and Special Urban Plans covering municipalities and regions across the country. These are not simple technical studies but strategic tools that will determine:

• Where tourism can develop
• Where productive activity will be strengthened
• Where settlements can expand
• Where strict building restrictions will apply for environmental protection

In other words, these plans affect not only how construction is carried out, but also land values, investment directions, housing development, and ultimately the economic and social identity of each region.

The Complexity of the Reform

Despite its significance, one of the main challenges is the extremely tight timeline for completion, as the reform is tied to funding from the Recovery Fund.

Although a period of about 18 months was initially foreseen, in practice the available time has been significantly reduced due to delays in launching studies, signing contracts, and collecting critical data from relevant authorities.

According to Dimitris Samaras, CEO of Samaras & Associates S.A.—one of the most experienced consulting firms involved in drafting 35 Local and Special Urban Plans across Greece (including Mykonos, Santorini, Milos, the Dodecanese, Sporades, Halkidiki, Corfu, and Macedonia)—urban planning is not a simple technical exercise.

It is not just about drawing land-use zones on a map. Instead, it requires a deep understanding of each area: its population, economic activity, social characteristics, environmental limits, and development prospects.

This process requires time, data processing, consultation, and continuous communication with stakeholders and public authorities. When all of this is attempted to be compressed into a few months, it is inevitable that weaknesses and gaps will arise.

At least 11 stages until approval

Significant delays are already being recorded in the advancement of urban planning schemes in Greece, as no study—whether concerning Special or Local Urban Plans—has yet reached the critical stage of environmental licensing.

According to information, the approval process remains stuck from the very first steps, as the studies have not even been forwarded to the Environmental Licensing Directorate (DIPA), which is a key link in the chain of approvals.

It is noteworthy that the course of an urban planning study is complex and multi-layered, involving at least 11 main stages:

1. Submission to the Urban Planning Directorate (Ministry of Environment and Energy – YPEN) and completeness check of the file.
2. Forwarding to DIPA and a new completeness check by it.
3. Consultation with relevant authorities (Archaeology, Ministry of Tourism, etc.).
4. Sending the file to the Region.
5. Opinion of the Municipal Council.
6. Decision of the Regional Council.
7. Approval of the Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA), which is put into consultation.
8. Forwarding to the General Secretariat for Spatial Planning and to KESYPOTHA (Central Council for Spatial Planning and Disputes).
9. Legal/technical review at YPEN.
10. Drafting and submission of a Presidential Decree to the Council of State.
11. Opinion of the Council of State and final issuance of the Presidential Decree.

Where the problem lies

Despite the clear procedure, progress is sluggish. For example, the studies for the urban plans of Mykonos and Santorini were submitted months ago to YPEN, while other urban plans were submitted by Samaras & Associates and other consulting firms by the end of 2025. As a result of these delays, 50–60% of the urban planning will be financed by the Recovery and Resilience Fund, as the rest cannot meet the tight deadlines, which have already expired since April 30—the milestone for submitting the relevant studies. It is estimated that out of 700 municipal units, around 500 will be delivered (about 70%).

Who can build and who cannot under the new Urban Planning Framework, to be implemented from 2027

The Samaras office argues that the main bottleneck is not so much the Ministry of Environment and Energy, but rather the complexity of shared responsibilities with other services and ministries, which do not move at the same pace. In addition, new regulations such as those concerning the delimitation of settlements and updated specifications appear to have further slowed down progress.

Incompatibilities with spatial planning frameworks

Another critical issue is the lack of a clear national strategy. Although there are technical specifications for conducting the studies, there is not always a clear political direction on what is being pursued in each area.

What kind of tourism development does the country want? What is the goal for the Cyclades? How should tourism and agricultural production be balanced on islands such as Naxos, which has agricultural output, or Santorini with its famous vineyards? What is the strategy for high-pressure areas such as Mykonos and Santorini?

These questions should have been answered at a central level before local planning began, according to the consultants of Special and Local Urban Plans. Instead, they are often required to make decisions without a complete framework, creating ambiguity and increasing the risk of conflicting choices. The problem is worsened by the fact that higher-level spatial frameworks, such as special tourism frameworks or regional plans, have not been completed or updated in all cases. Thus, local planning proceeds without the necessary guidance.

If the new Tourism Spatial Framework is approved—likely within June—Mr. Samaras does not exclude the possibility that the Ministry of Environment and Energy may request the studies to be returned for revision, which would cause further delays.

Given these conditions, the most optimistic estimates by consultants place the completion of the first urban plans in the summer of 2027.

This delay does not concern only the first projects, but also newer studies submitted later, confirming that the planning system remains heavy and rigid, with significant consequences for spatial planning and the country’s development prospects.

The “traps” of settlement boundaries

The reassessment of the boundaries of small settlements under 2,000 residents, in both island and mountainous areas, is one of the most important challenges faced by Special and Local Urban Plans.

According to Mr. Samaras, the initial approach in planning studies for settlements focused mainly on defining or updating land uses. However, with recent changes imposed following guidance from the Council of State, the scope of the studies has substantially changed: it is no longer simply about land-use regulation, but about redefining settlement boundaries.

Specifically, the Council of State ruled that the existing boundaries of many villages are not sufficiently documented and in several cases are considered invalid, while also setting new guidelines for their definition. Based on these, the cohesive part of the settlement (the village core predating 1923) is recognized as Zone A within boundaries. Additional zones with looser development and functional relation to the settlement, such as Zones B and B1, are included within boundaries if they meet specific criteria, while other areas that do not meet the new conditions are now classified as outside the boundaries.

“The application of these rules leads to a critical outcome: ‘gaps’ or ‘voids’ are created within existing settlements, meaning that areas which were previously considered inside are now classified as outside the boundaries,” says Mr. Samaras.