Urban planning and building violations in tourist developments in the heart of Ayia Napa are brought to the fore by F" presenting serious complaints about illegal construction work, incomplete controls and possible favourable treatment of illegals.
The complaints were made to the Municipality of Ayia Napa and forwarded to the Famagusta Provincial Self-Government Organization (EOAA) for investigation without any response so far.
According to data, the two developments are located within the Urban Planning Zone of Tourist Use T2b, with a maximum building factor of 40%, a coverage rate of 20%, a maximum number of floors 3 and a maximum height of buildings of 13.5 meters. However, in practice, deviations seem to be recorded, with significant exceedances of floors and building heights.
The first case concerns a former hotel. The property has reportedly undergone the addition of at least two additional floors without the required permit. Despite the fact that at the beginning of 2026 the Municipality of Ayia Napa sent a written letter to the EOAA requesting an examination of possible illegalities, information indicates that a substantial on-site inspection was never carried out, raising questions about negligence.
The second case concerns a plot near the port of Ayia Napa. While a permit had been granted for 60 rooms, the development has reportedly exceeded 100 rooms, accompanied by the construction of at least one additional floor beyond the approved one. Despite the size of the constructions visible to the naked eye, it is complained that the EOAA, as the competent urban planning authority, did not take any measures at all.
At the same time, the complaint points out the existence of containers behind the hotel in Ayia Napa, which are illegally used by the unit to house employees.
The spikes concerning the way the EOAA operates are particularly heavy. According to the complaint, there is an issue of an actual or potential conflict of interest, as it is alleged that the spouse of an entrepreneur associated with these developments works in the EDP's licensing sector. In fact, the Auditor General is asked to check whether there was access to files, participation in decision-making or even failure to comply with impartiality procedures.
The complainant leaves open blows against the administration, characteristically claiming that for some cases "the EDP did nothing" and underlining the need for immediate and impartial intervention of the central audit institutions.
The ball is now in the hands of the Auditor General and the Ministry of the Interior, who are called upon to examine whether there were unjustified delays, omissions or preferential treatment on the part of the competent officials of the EDPA.
The main demands made include:
The conduct of immediate and unbiased on-site inspections of the disputed plots.
The comparison of the real situation with the urban planning / building permits and the approved architectural plans.
The strict and equal application of legislation, without exceptions, for the protection of the public interest.
