Flexibility Issues in Land-Use Planning Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Cyprus, France, Greece and Italy

Abstract

The paper conducts a comparative analysis of the flexibility of land-use planning systems in relation to four southern European countries: Cyprus, France, Greece and Italy. It examines how their respective institutional settings and legal frameworks allow for different levels of flexibility at different stages of the local land-use planning process. After analyzing the substance of the land-use planning system in each country—including constitutional and legal provisions, the degree of local autonomy, and the nature of land-use planning instruments—the paper explores the flexibility vs. rigidity dichotomy in the practice of land-use zoning across three dimensions. The first dimension relates to land-use regulations that allow for dynamic land-use changes and flexible zoning capable of better addressing urban challenges. The second dimension concerns the ease with which land-use plans can be updated to adapt to the changing needs. The third dimension deals with the process of development control over land uses. The results of the analysis display differential flexibility among the countries under investigation, which may be imputable to the nature of the legal framework and the different administrative and planning traditions. While no one-size-fits-all local spatial planning model exists, a set of good practices are presented that aim at balancing regulatory control with flexibility in urban land-use planning in different contexts.

1. Introduction

Land uses serve both as a tool for spatial analysis and as an instrument for land-use planning. They represent the biophysical and socio-economic subsystems, whose integration is a key objective in the overall assessment of the land-use planning [1] Sustainability, ecosystem services and multi-functionality are emerging challenges in land-use systems that address, directly or indirectly, the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals [2] (Fürst, 2021). Land-use planning concerns different policy sectors related to natural resources and biodiversity, transport, territorial cohesion, climate, and energy management, at various scales (local, regional, and even national/European level) [3] (EEA, 2020).

Before discussing land-use planning it is useful to distinguish between closely related terms: urban use, land use and land-use zone. According to Pissourios and Lagopoulos [4] (2018, p. 2) “an urban use is the effect of any social activity that acquires a geographical manifestation in urban space”. This manifestation may have the form of a built space (a shell) which shelters the activity or it may not involve construction—for example, it may simply occupy a surface which is necessary for its operation, with or without minimal technical structures. In the latter case, it may correspond to a non-urban use (i.e., a rural activity). The term land use is applied in both urban and non-urban (rural) contexts to denote the dominant use of a given parcel of land. At the same time, in planning legislation it refers to the specification of a set of uses which are legally permitted within a particular urban zone. This zone, which has a legal and regulatory character, constitutes the institutionalized land-use zone, (hereafter referred to simply as land-use zone).

Urban uses—and consequently land uses—are not static and immutable entities; rather, they are produced and shaped by social practices [5] p. 48. Their transformation has been documented since the 18th century, driven, on the one hand, by the interaction of technological and economic factors as well as institutional reforms (such as EU agricultural policies or the collapse of the Soviet land management regime) and, on the other hand, by land ownership and land management regimes [6]. Even though urban uses are connected to the historical context of a region, displaying a relative stability in each time period, they do not have a fixed content. Instead, they are dynamic. New urban uses may appear while others disappear. The interaction of social, economic and technological factors results in their evolution and gradually leads to the need for the readjustment of land-use zones and therefore for adaptative planning.

Land-use planning is a key pillar of spatial governance and planning systems [7,8], serving three different functions. The first such function approaches land-use science as an analytical tool of land-use planning. As such, it includes the recording, mapping, and conversion trends of land uses [9]. Land-use classification into groups constitutes a valuable operational tool in simplifying and understanding spatial complexity [5], p. 13. However, this requires a stronger linkage with scientific knowledge and the development of a solid theoretical framework for land-use classification, which is currently lacking [10,11,12]. The second function approaches land use as a synthetic tool, closely connected to the practice and technical expertise of planning. This dimension is realized through the preparation of land-use plans that define and allocate specific groups of urban uses within designated areas (land-use zones). The grouping of uses is often based on empirical approaches to their formulation, which are subsequently evaluated according to their outcomes [5,13], p. 13. Finally, according to the third function, land-use planning is a cornerstone for effective policy implementation, including land-use permission (control development), infrastructure planning, and community engagement [14], p. 1. Therefore, as a regulatory tool, land-use presupposes corresponding land-use legislation [5], p. 141. Thus, in developed countries there is an institutional framework concerning land uses and their changes [15]. Depending on the nature of the legislator’s intent, the designation of land may range from more or less specific to more or less general [16], p. 929.

Acknowledging the above, this contribution addresses the question: how flexible is land-use planning? Considering that land uses and the way they are planned and regulated is closely related to the ‘nature’ of spatial governance planning systems [17,18], the research focuses on southern Europe. Four countries with different planning systems are selected to examine how different degrees of flexibility or rigidity in planning affect the adaptability of land uses. The analysis focuses on three dimensions: the land-use legal framework, the revision of land-use plans, and the development control of land uses¹.

Section 1 sets the research questions and examines the relationship between local land-use planning and flexibility, addressing the different phases of local land-use planning. This analysis is framed around the distinction between conformative and discretionary planning approaches. References to planning typologies are used as contextual analytical categories that help structure the comparison between the selected countries. Section 2 analyses the materials and methods used in the research. Section 3 presents the research component, cross-examining the cases of Cyprus, France, Greece, and Italy with reference to (i) flexibility in including new land uses in urban plans, (ii) flexibility in planning practices and instruments, and (iii) flexibility in development control. Section 4 interprets the comparative findings by examining flexibility within institutional settings and planning practices, while identifying good practices for balancing legal certainty with flexibility. Section 5 concludes the study by summarizing the main lessons learned and discussing their implications for spatial planning research and practice.

The concept of flexibility in planning theory is longstanding but evolving. In the 1960s, flexibility was largely perceived negatively, seen as relaxing the rules and undermining the primary goal of planning to balance the public and private interest. Gradually, however, academic discourse began to recognize the positive connotations of flexibility. Flexibility is increasingly linked to innovation, participation, diversity, and, mostly, creativity with regard to problem solving in planning practice [19]. Munoz Gielen and Tasan-Kok [20], p. 1097 define flexibility “as the room for change and alteration in zoning prescriptions during the planning process”. They claim that plans must strike a balance between certainty—so as to protect public interests—and flexibility, allowing them to respond to real development needs. They argue that the level of certainty depends on whether binding land-use regulations or merely indicative zoning plans are established before or after the negotiations between public authorities and developers take place [7,17,21].

The concepts of flexibility and certainty in planning are often framed through the distinction between regulatory (rule-based) systems and discretionary approaches that allow case-by-case judgment and negotiation or the distinction between plan-led systems and development-led systems [7]. In planning theory, the plan-led (or conformative) system provides more certainty, as it has a binding zoning plan that acquires legal status before development starts, whereas the development-led systems provide more flexibility [20], p. 1097. Notably, a dual trend is identified in planning systems: plan-led systems traditionally characterized by rigidity are increasingly introducing more flexible mechanisms, while development-led (or performative) systems are moving towards clearer rulers and greater certainty [22], p. 45. Moreover, as Buitelar and Sole [23], p. 983, note “every planning system lies the trade-off between flexibility and legal certainty”. Certainty concerns a city-wide long-term perspective and is associated with legal certainty and procedural certainty [24].

In most OECD countries, spatial planning objectives are articulated and achieved through a hierarchy of policy instruments: national policy and perspectives—visionary plans, strategic (regional) plans, framework plans and regulatory plans. Most commonly, in international practice, local land-use planning includes two types of plans: framework and regulatory plans [25,26] (the same has been confirmed by recent comparative studies focusing on the European space [27]).

Frameworks (master plans) provide the general guidelines for spatial organization and criteria for the regulation of land uses over an area, which may be a single municipality or district or several local authorities. They typically translate national and regional strategic goals set by higher level and middle level planning instruments and are concerned with specific locations. They may be binding or non-binding in respect of regulation but are generally implemented through lower tier plans. They provide the basis for the preparation of detailed land-use and sub-division plans, and physical development management through the granting of development and building permits [25].

Regulatory plans (or local plans) are detailed land-use plans which shape the urban form and which include binding regulations, with different nuances between European countries [26]. These instruments are, in most cases, detailed sub-division schemes showing individual parcels of land designated for specific uses. They may cover areas ranging from one site, a neighborhood of one municipality, the whole municipality or more than one municipality [25]. They are mostly legally binding and allocate development rights. Their level of detail may vary depending on the area of application or the spatial planning system. Some plans specify in detail the particular development conditions of the urban uses included within land-use zones, the permitted building intensity, and the required infrastructure [26]. Saakjans et al. [14] have highlighted that height and density regulations are prioritized in European local land-use planning followed by volume regulation, with the aim of achieving the goals of land-use efficiency and land-use equity and in order to regulate urban form.

2. Materials and Methods

To critically examine flexibility issues in land-use planning systems this study applies a comparative research design focusing on Cyprus, France, Greece and Italy. These countries share similar Mediterranean spatial challenges—such as coastal urbanization, tourism pressure, environmental vulnerability and climate risks [28,29]—but they operate under diverse administrative and legal traditions [30] and planning cultures [27,31]. At the same time, they feature diverse public attitudes and mechanisms for controlling spatial development [18], which in turn generate different levels of performance in terms of land-use regulation and development control [19]. Focusing on southern Europe helps address a gap in the literature, which has traditionally focused more on northern and western European planning systems, while often portraying southern European planning systems as less effective and less mature [32].

In particular, Tasan-Kok [19] groups the European spatial planning systems according to the capacity of public planning authorities to control or influence spatial development. Greece and Italy, along with other southeastern and Mediterranean European countries, is classified within the ‘conformative’ systems. In this category, public authorities allocate spatial development rights through a rigid, legally binding general zoning framework, combined with the recurrent use of amendments that can subsequently modify these provisions. This model tends to exhibit lower public control capacity with spatial development generally driven by market forces. Focusing specifically on selected southern European countries, including Italy and Greece, Tulumello et al. [32] argue that spatial governance and planning systems have been severely influenced by the 2008 global economic crisis and the subsequent austerity policies introduced by the European Union. These policies have led to the introduction of more flexible, market-friendly mechanisms and attitudes at the expense of the traditional focus on welfare and social issues. According to the classification of Berisha et al. [18], France has a ‘state-led’ system, in which spatial development is mainly driven by the state through major objectives (like no net land take or the development of renewable energies) and planning procedures. Local authorities implement these objectives by allocating development rights through legally binding general zoning frameworks, like in Greece and Italy. Cyprus, on the other hand, is classified as a ‘misled performative’ system, where spatial development is driven primarily by market interests, although in Cyprus there is a comparatively higher degree of public control capacity.

The comparative approach helps identify convergences and divergences in spatial planning systems concerning the flexibility in land-use legal framework, land-use planning practices, planning instruments, and land-use implementation mechanisms. This may support the formulation of broader conclusions regarding the adaptive planning [33] and offer alternative solutions for policy concerns.

The methodology is primarily based on a structured review of literature and comparative urban planning law, enriched with empirical data. The main data sources include statutory legislation, formal planning documents (e.g., land-use planning codes and land-use plans) and relevant secondary literature. These materials are analyzed with a focus on regulatory tools, planning practices, allocation of planning authority and the possibility of intervention and development control. Where relevant, the document-based analysis is enriched with empirical insights derived from case studies. Methodologically, the study employs triangulation with authors’ experience-based knowledge in professional planning practice, as well as key contributions from national scientific literatures.

The analysis begins with an overview of each country’s planning system, giving emphasis to types of land-use plans and the descale of land-use planning across different levels (regional, local) as well as to reforms of the planning framework. In particular, it provides the broader context within which the three dimensions of flexibility in land-use planning are examined through a comparative review of the basic features of local land-use planning. Specifically, land-use legal framework constitutes the first dimension. The existence of core land-use planning tools is examined in relation to the flexibility in defining new urban uses or land-use zones in land-use plans. The second dimension of flexibility addresses the ease of revising land-use plans, examining planning instruments and formal and informal planning practices. Lastly, the third dimension concerns the core approach to development control, i.e., the implementation of land-use planning, which is accomplished through the building permit policies. Flexibility is studied through general paths under which land uses are applied and special tools allowing significant deviation from the land-use plans (

Table 1. Analytical framework.

Analytical Dimension	Key Questions	Main Variables/Indicators
Planning system context	How is the planning system organized?	Types and hierarchy of land-use plans; allocation of competences between national, regional, and local levels, planning reforms
Legal–regulatory flexibility of land-use instruments	To what extent do planning laws allow adaptation of land uses and zoning categories?	Existence of land-use codes; flexibility of land-use categories; mechanisms for introducing new land uses
Flexibility of plan revision and amendment	How easy is it to revise or amend land-use plans? What formal and informal mechanisms facilitate change?	Procedures for plan amendment; negotiated planning practices; exceptional or expedited procedures
Flexibility in development control and Implementation	How are land-use plans applied in practice? To what extent can development deviate from statutory plans?	Building permit procedures; discretionary powers of authorities; special development tools
Comparative evaluation	How do different planning systems balance stability and flexibility?	Cross-country comparative synthesis; triangulation of legal, empirical, and professional knowledge

).

3. Results

3.1. The Case of Cyprus

3.1.1. Overview of the Planning System

The Cypriot planning system has been classified as a misled performative planning model [18]. Its performative character is reflected in its discretionary approach to development control, through which development rights are allocated on a case-by-case basis against a background of non-binding plans.

The spatial planning system in Cyprus is governed by the Town and Country Planning Law of 1972, which was modelled on Britain’s Town and Country Planning Act of the 1960s. The law provides for two planning levels: national and local. At the national level, it provides for the Island Plan (Shedio gia ti Niso), which covers the whole island of Cyprus. This type of plan has been inactive since 1974, following the Turkish invasion of the island. At the local level, the system includes three types of development plan: the local plan (Topiko Shedio), prepared for major urban complexes and other areas of unified identity; the Area Scheme (Shedio Periochis), which constitutes a detailed plan for part of a local plan area; and the Policy Statement for the Countryside (Dilosi Politikis gia tin Ypaithro), which applies to rural areas not covered by a local plan. All three types feature detailed land-use zones, permit extensive discretionary decision-making, and carry strong legal authority within their respective administrative units [34]. Given these similarities, the present review focuses on local plans, as they are the most characteristic land-use planning documents in the Cypriot system.

Local plans have been prepared for all major urban agglomerations. They have also been prepared for less urbanized and even purely rural areas. In terms of content, a local plan includes a policy statement and a set of maps. Of particular importance to the present case study is the land-use zoning map, which defines land-use zones and the as-of-right development rights for each zone.

3.1.2. Land-Use Legal Framework

The Cypriot spatial planning system does not provide a statutory framework governing either the classification of urban uses or the set of land-use zones to be employed in local plans. Instead, the planning board, which is responsible for preparing local plans, has broad discretion to determine the tools used to guide urban development. In practice, however, these tools display a considerable degree of standardization across different local plans.

With regard to land-use zones, local plans employ a standardized coding system. The codes begin with a set of letters indicating the general functional character of the zone (for example, Κα is used for residential areas). The letters are then followed by a number associated with the as-of-right floor area ratio. These codes display substantial similarity, though not complete uniformity, across different plans. In the more recent local plans (an attempt has been made to use the lettering part of the land-use code to express finer distinctions in spatial policy, with the result that the codes have multiplied in number and become unnecessarily more complex.

With regard to urban uses, there is no register of unitary use types, nor any classification scheme. Instead, relevant clarifications at different levels of refinement are scattered across various chapters and appendices of the local plans. Some unitary use types are associated with more than one category of use, contrary to the exclusivity rule of classification systems [35]. Moreover, the existence of a category of tourist use reveals a conflation of the functional identity of a use with the predominant character of the area in which it is located [4].

Paradoxically, the methodological shortcomings outlined above do not appear to create major operational problems for the Cypriot planning system, as this empirical and fragmented approach is accommodated within a case-by-case system of development control. Indicative of this is the standard policy contained in all local plans, which directs planning authorities to assess, on their merits, developments involving uses for which no precise spatial policy has been set out in the relevant local plan. While such ‘creative ambiguities’ may enable flexibility, they also create fertile ground for fragmented interpretations that may be advanced arbitrarily or, more worryingly, in accordance with the power dynamics of the parties involved.

3.1.3. Land-Use Plans Revision

In principle, a local plan should be revised every five to seven years. In practice, however, local plans often remain in force for much longer periods without any effect on their legal status. One important reason for such delay lies in the revision procedure itself. The process must begin with the publication of a report by the Minister of the Interior assessing the current condition of the local plan and setting out its future orientation. Individuals, local authorities, and other interested parties may then submit views and suggestions regarding the objectives, policies, and zoning of the future plan. Although this procedure secures public participation, it also imposes a substantial workload on the planning board, which must examine all submissions. In addition, local plans must undergo strategic environmental assessment. Any amendment of the local plan, whether minor or extensive, is subject to exactly the same procedure, making rapid updates and corrections effectively impossible. This issue affects not only the adaptability of local plans to changing conditions, but also other components of the planning system. A recent study found that the outdated Limassol local plan, together with the lengthy procedures required for its revision, created the conditions for the planning authority to abuse discretionary powers and permit tall buildings outside the designated high-rise zones of the plan [36].

A recent and significant trend in the Cypriot planning system, closely linked to both the flexibility agenda and the difficulty of revising local plans, is the shift towards incentive zoning. This began in 2011 with the introduction of density bonuses in local plans (see

Table 2. Density bonuses available under the Limassol local plan and supplementary incentive schemes (source: own elaboration).

	Increase of the Maximum Permitted FAR	FAR Added to the Maximum Permitted
Density bonuses offered by the Limassol local Plan
- To attract desirable uses to selected commercial roads (§11.7.3)	50%
- To incentivize social housing (§12.8.2)	25%
- To attract desirable uses to the city center (§11.7.2)	20%
- To incentivize the development of apartments in selected commercial roads (§11.7.4)	15%
- To incentivize the development of offices (§13.7.7)	10%
- To incentivize the development of housing complexes (§12.8.2)	5%
- To incentivize the use of renewable energy sources (§12.8.2)	5%
- To incentivize the enhancement of existing touristic uses (§15.11.3)	5%
- To incentivize the development of dormitories (§12.14.10)		0.30
- To incentivize the development of new colleges and universities (§16.8.3)		0.20
Density bonuses offered by incentive schemes
- To incentivize the protection and restoration of listed buildings [37]	70%
- To incentivize affordable housing [38]	70%
- To incentivize large-scale and tourist developments [39]		0.30
- To incentivize the construction of civil defense shelters [40]	5%
- Special scheme to strengthen the education sector [38]		0.25

). Since then, the government has introduced additional incentive schemes that provide density bonuses on top of those already granted by local plans. These bonuses may be combined and, subject to the discretionary approval of the planning authority, may in some cases double the as-of-right floor area ratio of a development. This trend represents a substantial transformation of the planning system. Through such schemes, the Council of Ministers has systematically bypassed local plans by intervening directly in established planning policy, while also circumventing the procedures of public participation and environmental assessment to which development plans are otherwise subject. At the same time, insofar as this practice has not been held unlawful or procedurally defective, it has significantly expanded the margins of flexibility within spatial policy.

3.1.4. Development Control

Although performative systems do not generally provide planning certainty [41,42], this is only partly true of the Cypriot planning system. Local plans do provide a degree of certainty, provided that a proposed development is aligned with the main objectives of the planning framework and relies only on as-of-right development rights. Any proposal that departs from the main objectives and/or from those rights requires the exercise of discretionary powers, thereby increasing planning uncertainty. In an attempt both to increase certainty and to accelerate development control, which is another recognized weakness of discretionary planning systems, recent legislation has made it possible to obtain planning permission within 30 days for certain types of development [43,44].

As regards the basic principles of development control, each planning application is assessed against the provisions of the local plan as well as any other material considerations. Planning permission may be issued only if the proposal complies with all relevant provisions of the local plan [45], p. 28, [35,36], p. 59–71. This means that the planning authority must assess a proposal not only in terms of conformity with land-use zoning, but also, and in some cases more importantly, against broader policies relating to environmental protection, cultural heritage preservation, and the enhancement of the built environment. Failure to comply with any of these provisions results in refusal of the application. To obtain a sound understanding of all material considerations, the planning authority may hold several meetings with the owner, the architect, and representatives of public departments able to provide specialized advice.

The decision-making process in development control is closely tied to the exercise of discretion. The planning framework permits discretionary judgement across almost all aspects of a proposed development, including use, floor area ratio, site coverage, number of floors, total building height, setback distances, and parking provision. In addition, the planning authority may impose terms and conditions or determine appropriate compensation for externalities arising from the development. Taken together, these broad discretionary powers create a context in which nearly every aspect of a proposal becomes open to negotiation between the applicant and the planning authority [37]. In a system where little is categorically prohibited and nothing is unconditionally allowed, power-laden dynamics become central to the final decision. Within such a setting, clientelism and lobbying emerge as relatively common features of practice.

Proposals that deviate from the strategic objectives of local plans, or from specific provisions in relation to which the planning authority has no discretion to permit departure, may nevertheless be approved through a departure application. Such applications are examined by the Board for the Examination of Departure Applications and are then referred to the Council of Ministers for final decision. Departure applications may be submitted only in exceptional and duly justified circumstances, in cases involving the public interest, or in other special cases prescribed by the relevant regulations [46]. To safeguard the public interest and minimize adverse effects on local amenities, these applications are examined through public hearings.

3.2. The Case of France

3.2.1. Overview of the Planning System

The planning system in France belongs to the Napoleonic family of planning and the state has a historic power in the implementation of urban policies and in the definition of urban planning tools [47]). At the end of the 1960s, in a context of steady economic growth and of a rural–urban shift, the state reinforced the spatial planning system, with the Loi d’orientation foncière. This law introduced two types of plans. First, the Master Plan for Urban Planning and Development (schéma directeur d’aménagement et d’urbanisme—SD), a document that would fix the main direction for growth at the scale of the urban region. The SD was developed by the state representatives of each large city, at the inter-municipal level. Meanwhile, the local plan (plan d’occupation des sols—POS) would control land use and the density for development at the level of each municipality. On one hand, the POS must respect the guidelines set by the SD. On the other hand, it has a statutory power: it embodies the rights of use associated with a piece of land that are confirmed through the granting of planning permission to build in compliance with building regulations.

In the early 1980s, spatial planning was decentralized to municipalities and the principle of local autonomy left them the choice of whether or not they would establish a plan. Most municipalities focused on the POS and, in contrast, the SD fell into disuse as such plans had hitherto been made (and imposed) by the state [48]. Furthermore, as France was hit by a prolonged economic crisis, the plans proved to contain erroneous forecasts regarding the need for new spaces for industry or housing [49].

Faced with the gradual calling into question of planning as expressed in land-use maps, in the late 1990s a new initiative by the state, the Solidarité et renouvellement urbains law (solidarity and urban renewal—SRU), triggered a revival of urban development planning and rendered it more strategic [50]. The underlying rationale for the reform of the planning system was threefold: to ensure that the development of urban areas would be treated as a whole and not only through municipal plans; to create linkages between land-use planning, transport and housing; and to promote social balance within urban areas [47].

When the bill was presented to the French parliament, Jean-Claude Gayssot, the Minister of Planning, Transport and Housing, proposed to “replace the SD, which is too rigid and inflexible, and therefore quickly ineffective, by an urban development plan (schéma de cohérence territoriale—SCOT) combining flexibility and efficiency.”². The relevant scale put forward by the state is the city-region, implying negotiations between urban and suburban or even rural areas that are part of a city-region. Based on a precise diagnosis, a SCOT is supposed to outline a development and sustainability strategy for the long term (15–20 years). It sets out the guidelines for maintaining a balance between areas to be built up and natural, farming or forested areas. It also defines the objectives for balancing housing, the social mix, public transport, as well as commercial and business facilities. Such a plan is developed by voluntary groupings of municipalities who draft the blueprints, which are then subjected to public inquiries before being approved. The SCOT is then reviewed at least every ten years. Currently, 500 urban development plans have been approved or are in the process of being approved, which corresponds to most of urban France, though only 65% of the national territory is covered.

At the municipal or inter-municipal level, the local plan (renamed plan local d’urbanisme—PLU) is a key instrument in spatial planning, as it sets out the building rights of landowners through a set of regulations and zoning documents. The PLU is legally binding on landowners and urban developers applying for building permits. It may also be supplemented by programmatic guidelines for development (Orientations d’aménagement et de programmation—OAPs), which set out additional rules for specific geographical areas or topics [47]. In particular, OAP defines a framework which complements the provisions contained in the local planning regulations, and which indicates to developers how to design their projects. Depending on the case, the OAP may specify setback distances for buildings, buildings to be preserved, variations in building height, specific treatments of facades, spaces to be planted with vegetation, etc. The PLU must be compatible with two higher-level strategic documents: the SCOT, which defines and spatializes sectoral policies for an inter-municipal area, and the regional land-development plan (Schéma régional d’aménagement, de développement durable et d’égalité des territoires—SRADDET), which distributes urban development rights over the regional area.

The new planning system seeks to overcome the French municipal fragmentation, which leads to inconsistencies in the local choices that are made [48]. With the Housing and Urban Planning Act of 2014, the PLU should now be made by a voluntary grouping of municipalities, unless one quarter of the municipalities accounting for 20% of the population are opposed. However, planning permission (especially building permits) remains within the powers of municipalities. In October 2024, 87% of the municipalities that make up the French territory were covered by a PLU or an inter-municipal PLU.

3.2.2. Land-Use Legal Framework

The French spatial planning system provides a framework defining the set of land-use zones to be used in a PLU. The Town Planning Code defines four types of regulated zones that must be used when developing a PLU. These institutionalized land uses are urban zones (U), zones to be urbanized (AU), agricultural zones (A), and natural and forest zones (N). These zones are delineated on one or more maps and are associated with different possible land uses, according to a list defined by the Ministry of Urban Planning. Thus, in urbanized or urbanizable zones, four categories of possible land uses may be included in the plan: housing, commerce and service activities, community facilities and public services, and other economic activities. Each of these categories is further subdivided into even more specific uses (warehouse, convention center, sports facilities, etc.). Each zone has its own set of regulations defined at the discretion of the planner. These regulations may establish different rules depending on whether the intended use of the buildings is residential, hotel accommodation, offices, retail, crafts, industry, agricultural or forestry operations, or warehousing. These categories are exhaustive. Areas that are already urbanized and where existing or planned public facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the buildings to be constructed are classified as U zones. Areas of a natural character within the municipality intended for future urbanization may be classified as AU zones, depending on whether the existing facilities on the periphery are sufficient to serve the buildings to be constructed. There are two types of AU zones: “buildable” AU zones and “non-buildable” AU zones. Areas within the municipality, whether developed or not, that require protection due to the agronomic, biological, or economic potential of the agricultural land may be classified as A zones. Areas within the municipality, whether developed or not, that require protection due to the quality of the sites, natural environments, landscapes, and their significance, particularly from an aesthetic, historical, or ecological perspective, or due to the presence of forestry operations, or their character as natural spaces, may be classified as N zones. Within N zones, it is possible to define areas where transfers of building rights may occur, or sectors of limited size and capacity where construction is permitted subject to specific location and density requirements.

3.2.3. Land-Use Plans Revision: Planning Practices and Instruments

The local plan (PLU) can be either modified or revised by a resolution of the municipal council following a public inquiry. The amendment allows for changes to the PLU. It is used, in particular, to increase or decrease building potential in a zone or, with a view to land conservation, to reduce the size of an urban (U) or developable (AU) zone. Initiated by the municipal council, the procedure takes approximately one year.

Conversely, a revision of the PLU is necessary when the project aims, for example, to reduce the size of a protected wooded area or an agricultural or natural and forest zone, in favor of other uses (urban or developable zone). This revision is considered “simplified” by organizing a joint review of the proposed PLU amendment between the municipality, the state, and associated public bodies (organizations representing farmers, businesses, or other local authorities). This procedure takes approximately two years and saves time when compared with a “general” revision. In the latter case, the procedure takes several years because it follows the same steps as the initial development of the PLU. The new document may be significantly different from the previous one.

The legislator has not created an obligation for a municipality or group of municipalities to modify or revise the local plan (PLU). It can be estimated that a general revision takes place approximately every 10 years, but there is considerable variation in cases depending on the region. Two contrasting examples illustrate this point. Les Sables d’Olonne, a coastal municipality (population 48,000) experiencing nearly 20% population growth between 2011 and 2023, has not revised its 2011 PLU, relying instead on successive modifications (2014, 2015, 2023, 2024). In contrast, Autun (population 13,000), located in a declining region of Burgundy, lost 10% of its population over the same period. Its PLU revision, initiated in 2010, was approved in 2015. An inter-municipal PLU covering 55 municipalities was launched the same year but, as of April 2026, remains in the final approval stage. Until its adoption, building permits in Autun continue to rely on the 2015 PLU.

Finally, it is worth noting that, regarding revision, no special procedures (e.g., exemptionary planning) are considered.

3.2.4. Development Control

Building permits and other authorizations related to land use or development are processed at the municipal or inter-municipal level, applying the regulations of the plan established at that level. In 2007, a reform simplified the control of construction and development projects: the eleven different authorization regimes and the four previous declaration regimes were consolidated into three authorizations (building permit, development permit, and demolition permit) and one prior declaration.

All new constructions are subject to a building permit, while housing developments, the development of a residential leisure park, and the development of a campsite or large caravan park fall under the development permit. The authority competent to issue these permits is the mayor, on behalf of the municipality, in municipalities with PLU or an equivalent urban planning document. As an exception to the above, the state administrative authority (prefect) is competent to decide on behalf of the state on certain projects, following more discretionary process outside of the PLU. This applies to works, constructions, and installations carried out on behalf of the state, as well as certain energy production, transmission, distribution, and storage facilities, etc. In these cases, before making a decision, the prefect obtains the opinion of the mayor or the president of the relevant inter-municipal authority (EPCI).

If the municipality is part of an intermunicipal body (EPCI), it may, in agreement with the latter, delegate its authority regarding building permits and other acts related to land use. This delegation of authority must be confirmed after each renewal of the municipal council or after the election of a new president of the intermunicipal body. In this case, the issuance of permits and other acts falls under the jurisdiction of the president of the EPCI, it being understood that the mayor must give their opinion on each permit application and each prior declaration.

3.3. The Case of Greece

3.3.1. Overview of the Planning System

The Greek planning system belongs to the Napoleonic family of planning; it is clearly rule-based and characterized by strong central administration [30]. Although planning competences were partly decentralized in the 1990s, local and regional authorities currently retain mainly advisory roles [26]. Following the 2008 fiscal crisis, planning powers were recentralized, while market-oriented instruments expanded [51,52]. Spatial planning is largely governed by a ‘conformative’ model, based on binding land-use zones and regulatory controls that allocate development rights [22]. While this provides certainty for public authorities and market actors [8], p. 1002, it also generates serious rigidities in fulfillment of the public strategy through rigid zoning and codes as well as in market dynamics [18]. However, it is worth noting that, as Gemenetzi [53] notes, the state has a dual role, acting both as overregulator and enabler of planning, in particular in special-purpose planning. Central governance is often perceived as an impediment to investment due to overregulation. At the same time, however, the state itself can steer planning in ways that ensure the feasibility of projects.

Since the 1990s the system has been structured across three hierarchical levels: national, regional, and local. Each level is addressed by one or more types of spatial plans which have varying degrees of binding authority and are based on cascading policy directions downwards [54]. National sectoral strategic plans and regional spatial plans, although strategic in nature, often carry regulatory force to compensate for gaps in land-use planning and to allow them to coordinate across the lack of harmonization between different planning levels [55]. In parallel, there are many horizontal (national) laws that regulate urban development, especially in areas that lack land-use planning or which complement the main provisions of land-use plans.

Local-level planning (also called urban planning) is characterized by binding land-use plans which require harmonization with the overlying spatial planning. It includes different nuances of ‘local’: (a) the municipality, or the (lower-level administrative) municipal unit; (b) the city/town/settlement; and, rarely, (c) a part that may extend from the level of a neighborhood to the level of individual land properties. All local-level spatial planning instruments are regulative and statutory, regulating land use and allocating building rights through legally binding commitments or decisions. Currently, there are two types of conventional public-led land-use plans: the local urban plan (Topiko Poleodomiko Schedio—TPS) and the detailed implementation plan (Rumotomiko Sxhedio Efarmogis—RSE)³. The local urban plan is a mixed character (in terms of being both a framework and regulatory) and comprehensive plan referring to the whole territory of a municipality. It integrates various public policies, defines land-use zones, and specifies development rights within each zone. The detailed implementation plan is an exclusively regulatory plan that aligns with the local urban plan’s provisions, detailing land-use and building regulations. As Gemenetzi [54] notes, in parallel with public-led land-use plans, there are the private-led land-use plans that derive from different planning instruments, broadly called special urban plans (Eidiko Poleodomiko Schedio—EPS). These may be initiated either by the private or public actors and are oriented to cover a specific demand for targeted place-based development. These are legally equal to conventional public-led land-use plans, but they usually refer to a more restricted territory.

3.3.2. Land-Use Legal Framework

Greece established its first comprehensive legislative framework for spatial organization and urban planning in 1923. While the Presidential Decree of 1923 stipulates that properties within a town plan may be used freely, though only for a predetermined purpose [56], formal land-use planning was introduced only in 1979, with a classification system distinguishing general land uses (genikes catigories xriseon), corresponding to land-use zones, and specific land uses (eidikes catigories xriseon), corresponding to urban uses. This system was expanded through subsequent reforms, notably Law 1337/1983 and the 1987 Presidential Decree, increasing both general and specific categories. However, it applied exclusively to urban areas, while non-urban areas remained largely unregulated under a laissez-faire regime. Non-urban areas were incorporated into the planning system with Law 2508/1997 through general urban plans, although without revising the classification system. As a result, land-use designations in these areas were often determined empirically, largely at the planner’s discretion.

Recent reforms (L. 4269/2014, L.4447/2016) led to a new classification of urban uses and land-use zones (P.D. 59/2018). The new land-use code increased the land-use zones (genikes catigories xriseon) from nine to fourteen and urban uses (eidikes catigories xriseon) from twenty-seven to forty-seven, contributing to increasing regulatory complexity. This framework applies to both urban and non-urban areas. Since its enactment, the P.D. continues to be amended through legislative interventions that introduce additional specific land uses (e.g., data centers, production film studios, etc.), reflecting the state’s response to international investment interest. This happens because the possibility to insert a new urban land use into a plan is completely restricted. Land-use plans have a strong binding force and the only path to incorporate new land uses is the land-use plan revision or the direct amendment of national legislative action, which is the planning code under which the land-use plans operate.

The recent planning reform (L. 4759/2020) has provided a framework defining a broader set of five types of areas (katigories periochon) used in local urban plans: residential areas, areas of productive and business activities, areas of land-use control, environmental protection areas, and areas of special regimes. Within residential areas, areas of productive and business activities, and environmental protection areas, land-use zones are designated in accordance with a land-use planning code, whereas building regulations are mainly defined by national legislation. Areas of special regimes embed land-use zones and building regulations derived from special-purpose plans and specific planning regimes (forest areas, harbor zones, seashore zones, archaeological sites, etc.). However, the definition of urban uses within areas of land-use control remains currently unclear in practice. It is worth noting that the aforementioned general planning code refers to conventional public-led local-level spatial planning. Instead, private-led [52] and special-purpose-led planning [53], which has been expanded in the aftermath of the fiscal crisis, is based on special types of regulatory urban plans, generally known as special urban plans (Eidika Poleodomika Schedia—EPS). These new planning instruments operate under special planning regimes, which developed distinct specialized and differentiated lists of land uses, increasing ambiguity within planning framework.

In short, concerning the general land-use planning code, its gradual shift from a more general—and therefore more flexible—classification system to a more detailed and consequently more regulatory one increases rigidity in planning. The excessive specification of urban uses entails the risk that certain activities may fall outside the established land-use zones. This creates ambiguities and bottlenecks in the licensing process and in the control of urban development, perpetuates legal uncertainty, and ultimately leads the state to overregulation.

3.3.3. Land-Use Plan Revision: Planning Practices and Instruments

According to recent planning reform upper-level land-use plans (that are local urban plans (TPSs)) cannot be revised within five years after their enactment. However, before the expiry of the five-year period, amendments may exceptionally be permitted. In any case, failure to revise land-use plans does not trigger any penalties, and even outdated plans continue to maintain their legal status. The land-use plan revision is both a time-consuming and heavy procedure, similar to other European countries. Until the recent reform of the spatial planning system, established practices for deviating from planning provisions and amending land-use zones in order to reallocate development rights compatible with proposed projects included ad hoc or site-specific amendments to upper-level or lower-level land-use plans; however, such planning amendments could be justified only on grounds of public interest. Therefore, the formal authority to initiate the relevant procedures resides exclusively with the central state or the municipality, although, behind the scenes, private interests could trigger the process.

Amendments to land-use zones and urban uses are constrained by the jurisprudential principle of the non-deterioration of the land-use regime, a doctrine developed by the council of state in close connection with the constitutional protection of the environment. This principle essentially prohibits regulatory changes that would worsen living conditions or degrade environmental quality through the modification of existing land uses. Nevertheless, as a shift towards less favourable planning regulations—namely, the introduction of more environmentally burdensome uses—may be considered lawful where exceptional grounds of overriding public interest are established and the necessity of the amendment is substantiated on the basis of objective criteria, or where the modification serves to harmonize the land-use regime with the strategic directions of higher-tier spatial or urban planning instruments [57], pp. 207–211.

Under the current planning framework, however, the allocation or modification of land-use zones, urban uses and development rights in territorially restricted areas is undertaken through the ‘umbrella’ instrument of the custom-made special urban plan (SUP). Τhis constitutes the first systematic attempt to introduce flexibility within the formal institutional framework. These plans provide tailored planning solutions so as to be in accordance with the needs of a particular project or cover a specific demand for targeted place-based development. They provide deviation from the conventional upper-level land-use plan by establishing a special planning regime which amends and introduces special land uses and building regulations exclusively within the predefined boundaries of landed properties. This special-purpose planning, concerning a kind of ‘stand-alone’ plan, introduces targeted exceptions into the structure of the local level plan. Though EPS plan development started cautiously in 2017, it has progressively accelerated [53], pp. 572, 575. As of 2024, 29 plans have been approved, while 57 are pending approval or remain in progress.

3.3.4. Development Control

As the Greek planning system is strictly plan-led and belongs to the conformative planning model, permitted land uses and development rights are rigidly defined by land-use plans. Development control is conducted through the building permit policy. Therefore, planning authorities approve or reject planning or building applications according to their conformity to the land-use plan. Decision-making does not involve any consultation with applicants or other governmental or non-governmental bodies. Deviation from what is foreseen by plans is possible only in cases where permitted land uses have been enriched by direct amendments through legislative actions that are applicable at the national level.

However, patterns of spatial development may deviate from those that are foreseen by land-use plans, especially in non-urban areas. An important issue in Greek land-use governance is the question of enforcement. Generally, a large number of illegally constructed buildings exist in Greece. Though the trend of buildings that contravened existing land-use plans at the time of their construction has declined over recent decades, their retroactive legalization is a common path, either by the readjustment of land-use plan in order to bring illegal buildings to a legal state or by the payment of a fine. However, when the legalization of buildings is used regularly, landowners might expect that illegally constructed buildings will be legalized and will behave accordingly [26], pp. 42, 111. In order to mitigate this trend, the institution of the building control inspector was introduced in Greece in the 2000s to ensure compliance with urban planning and building regulations. The role of the inspector is to monitor the implementation of building permits, detect violations, and prevent unauthorized constructions or uses. The establishment of this institution aimed to curb illegal building practices and enhance compliance with planning rules. However, it achieved partial success, as the demolishment of illegally constructed structures is not enforced in practice. This is the result of “compromise planning” [58]. In short, the land-use practice seems to have some flexibility through piecemeal, formal, and informal mechanisms and paths that effectively allow deviations from statutory regulations.

3.4. The Case of Italy

3.4.1. Overview of the Planning System

Spatial planning activity has been initially framed under the label urbanistica by the 1948 Constitution, as a discipline for which the regions shall legislate within the fundamental principles defined by the state. Though the 2001 constitutional reform replaced the term urbanistica with governo del territorio, signaling a broader understanding of the discipline, the legal backbone of the Italian planning system continues to be the National Planning Law no. 1150 of 1942, which introduced the Piano Regolatore Generale (General Regulatory Plan—PRG) as the cornerstone of spatial planning at the municipal level, establishing a strongly conformative model based on ex-ante zoning and legally binding land-use prescriptions. Since the 1960s, more than seventy proposals have been elaborated to modernize or replace Law 1150/1942, addressing issues such as the separation of strategic and regulatory planning, the redistribution of development rights and the integration of planning with economic and environmental policies. However, none of these has resulted in a comprehensive national reform. Instead, change has occurred through incremental adjustments, sectoral legislation and ad hoc measures often adopted in response to specific emergencies or political contingencies [59].

The apparent inertia of national planning legislation was incrementally bypassed starting from the end of the 1970s, when regional institutions were formally established and the administrative competences and functions attributed to them by the constitution were transferred under Presidential Decree 616/1977. This paved the way for a first generation of regional planning laws, which shall be understood both as a due step of administrative decentralization and as the starting point of a long-term differential reconfiguration of the Italian planning system. The 2001 constitutional reform further strengthened the foundation of regional planning with the regions that progressively assumed the role of primary innovators in planning law, introducing new instruments, procedures and governance arrangements that reflected a differential interpretation of the relationship between public regulation and private initiative. While some regions pursued strongly public-led and structurally oriented models, others favored more flexible, strategic or market-oriented approaches [60]⁴. In doing so, rather than converging towards a common model, regional planning systems diversified over time, reflecting distinct interpretations of public steering, regulatory flexibility and the role of negotiated implementation.

3.4.2. Land-Use Legal Framework

The Italian national legal framework defines spatial planning as operating primarily as an instrument for the legal regulation of property, assigning transformation rights through land-use zoning and quantitative parameters. Mandatorily produced by each municipality, the PRG defines the spatial organization of the municipality by assigning specific uses to different portions of land, thereby institutionalizing zoning as a core planning tool. This early model reflected a functionalist approach, based on the separation of urban uses—residential, industrial, agricultural, etc.—combined with a strong emphasis on public control over private land development [61]. The 1942 framework was later reinforced and partially reformed in response to the rapid urbanization and speculative development that characterized the post-war economic boom. Law 765/1967 strengthened the obligation for municipalities to adopt planning instruments and introduced stricter controls on building activity, particularly in unplanned areas, consolidating zoning as a regulatory mechanism capable of guiding urban growth [59]. Shortly thereafter, Ministerial Decree 1444/1968 provided a standardized classification of urban uses into “homogeneous zones” that remains highly influential, such as historic centers (Zone A), built-up areas (B), expansion zones (C), industrial areas (D), agricultural land (E), and public facilities (F).

From the 1980s onward, the incremental regionalization of the spatial planning system has been paralleled by a broader transformation in planning culture. The rigid, functionally segregated zoning model inherited from the mid-twentieth century has gradually been challenged by more flexible and strategic approaches. Italian planning has increasingly incorporated elements such as mixed-use development, negotiated planning procedures, and a stronger focus on urban regeneration and environmental sustainability. Nonetheless, traditional zoning categories have not disappeared; rather, they have been reinterpreted and adapted within more complex planning frameworks. This evolution is particularly evident when examining regional differences. In Lombardy, for instance, the traditional PRG has been replaced by the Piano di Governo del Territorio (Regional Law 12/2005), which is articulated into distinct components (i.e., strategic, regulatory, and service-oriented) which collectively allow for a more flexible interpretation of zoning, shifting from rigid land-use designation toward performance-based regulation. In Tuscany, the strong integration between spatial and landscape policies is reflected in the distinction between the Piano Strutturale and the Piano Operativo. Here, zoning is embedded within a broader territorial vision that emphasizes environmental protection and cultural heritage (Regional Law 65/2014). Similarly, the recent reform of Emilia-Romagna (Regional Law 24/2017) promotes the reduction of land consumption and encourage urban regeneration, effectively limiting the expansion of new development areas. In this context, zoning becomes less about rigid land-use allocation and more about guiding transformation processes.

This incremental differentiation resonates with debates on strategic spatial planning [62] and may be interpreted as a partial shift from a purely conformative logic, centered on ex-ante zoning, towards hybrid, neo-performative arrangements provided with a strategic dimension [7,17,21]. However, in several regions, the traditional PRG structure persists, and even where dual planning exists, the binding force and temporal horizon of structural components vary significantly. The outcome is not the replacement of the conformative model, but its differentiated reconfiguration. In other words, the core logic of ex-ante land-use allocation through statutory planning remains formally intact, but operated within institutional frameworks that incorporate strategic, negotiated, and sustainability-oriented elements to varying degrees.

3.4.3. Land-Use Plan Revision: Planning Practices and Instruments

The process of the variation and revision of the planning instruments used to regulate land use by Italian municipalities has long been a crucial yet problematic component of the country’s spatial planning system. The PRG was conceived by Law 1150/1942 as a comprehensive and relatively stable instrument, intended to guide urban development over a long time horizon. Consequently, any modification required a formal procedure largely analogous to that of the plan’s initial approval⁵. This process typically involved several stages: municipal adoption, public display, the collection and evaluation of objections by the municipality, and, finally, approval by a higher-level authority (initially the state, later the region). Such procedures were designed to ensure transparency and institutional control but also resulted in considerable delays, often stretching over several years.

The inefficiency of this model became particularly evident vis-a-vis post-war rapid urbanization, when the mismatch between planning regulations and development dynamics encouraged informal practices, ad hoc exceptions, and, in some cases, speculative behavior. In response, Italian planning gradually incorporated mechanisms aimed at increasing flexibility and reducing procedural burdens. Among these, program agreements (accordi di programma), introduced in the 1990s, allowed public authorities to coordinate interventions and approve planning variations through negotiated processes, effectively accelerating decision-making and facilitating the implementation of complex projects. This season of ‘negotiated programming’ (programmazione negoziata) positions in the context of broader reforms of public administration and regional development policy, which introduced new forms of interaction between public authorities, private actors and socio-economic stakeholders, marked a substantial departure from the traditional regulatory logic of Italian planning law [63].

The new instruments allowed local administrations to pursue specific projects, often related to urban regeneration, infrastructure development, or economic revitalization, without undertaking the lengthy and politically sensitive process of revising comprehensive master plans [60]. While this approach enhanced the short-term capacity of public authorities to act, it also raised significant issues from a legal and operational perspective. The new instruments frequently operated alongside or in derogation of statutory plans, weakening the hierarchical coherence of the planning system and increasing legal uncertainty. Moreover, their selective and project-based nature risked privileging organized and economically powerful actors, reinforcing territorial inequalities and undermining the universalistic rationale traditionally associated with planning law [63,64].

This new approach also influenced the incremental reforms of regional spatial planning law, with several regions that incorporated elements of negotiated programming into their statutory frameworks. Lombardia (L.R. 12/2005) and Veneto (L.R. 11/2004), for example, embedded planning agreements and equalization tools within their reformed planning systems, while Toscana and Emilia-Romagna integrated negotiated instruments within more explicitly strategic frameworks. Lombardia and Campania introduced accelerated procedures and mechanisms akin to self-approval or silence-assent, intended to make plan adoption more predictable and responsive. Emilia-Romagna pursued a different route, seeking rationalization by reorganizing plan-making as a more unified procedural sequence rather than a fragmented chain of approvals.

3.4.4. Development Control

The mechanisms devoted to development control have traditionally been conceived as being pivoted on the acritical application of conformative binding zoning. In its original 1942 form, the logic was clear: public authorities first define the legal framework of permitted land uses through planning instruments and only afterwards do they examine (and accept or reject) individual proposals for building or land transformation on the basis of the prescription indicated by the plan. In other words, each private proposal for transformation was meant to be judged against the plan, not against a broad balancing of interests carried out anew each time. The political and discretionary moment occurred mainly when drafting and approving the plan; once the plan was in force the administration’s task was to verify whether the proposal matched the legally binding framework already set by planning. Any non-conforming project had to be refused, unless the plan itself was first amended through a formal variation⁶.

Yet this has become less absolute over time, because the points at which flexibility can enter the system have multiplied. The core question today is therefore not whether planning can still bind private development, but at what stage of the process discretion is now located and through which procedural devices the administration can accommodate projects that do not fit neatly within the old zoning logic. For instance, whereas the classic PRG tended to concentrate many different functions into a single instrument, the recent separation in some regions of this instrument into two has had important consequences for control. This allows public authorities to preserve a relatively stable strategic framework while managing individual transformations through more adaptable instruments, negotiated agreements, implementation plans, project-based variants, or convention-based permits. More generally, it is possible to witness various attempts to increasingly combine rules with procedural flexibility, negotiated implementation, and selective derogation, all aimed at reducing the time needed to adapt plans, making planning more responsive to regeneration projects, accommodating investment proposals that emerge after the approval of the plan, and enabling public authorities to trade development opportunities for public benefits. In that sense, Italian planning has moved from a purely conformative approach to development control toward a more hybrid one, in which regulation and negotiation coexist.

4. Discussion

Comparing land-use planning across the four countries reveals both shared traditions and important institutional differences that reflect different paths and degrees of flexibility. The Greek planning system is clearly rule-based and characterized by strong central administration. The Cypriot system, despite being also characterized by a strong central administration, is highly discretionary. France is often characterized by a relatively structured and hierarchical planning framework with strong state coordination, while Italy exhibits a rather heterogeneous system shaped by significant regionalization. In short, Greece, France, and Italy have plan-led systems that contrast against that of Cyprus, which has a development-led system [65]. Cyprus, France, and Greece have both upper-level and lower-level local land-use plans, whereas in Italy’s regionalized framework only some regions have introduced a dual-plans structure. All land-use plans define land-use zones in which they specify urban uses. In all of the countries the development control takes place through permission that assigns developments rights (

Table 3. Comparative overview of basic features of local land-use planning.

	Cyprus	France	Italy	Greece
Name of upper-level local land-use plan (framework plans)	Local plan (Topiko Schedio) Policy statement for the countryside (for rural areas)	Local urban plan (Plan local d’ urbanisme)	General regulatory plan (Piano Regolatore Generale—PRG) The name changes from region to region, with some regions that have split the instrument into two instruments (structural and operational)	Local urban plan (Topiko Poleodomiko Schedio) (public-led) Special urban plan (Eidiko Poleodomiko Schedio) (usually private-led and applied to a more restricted territory)
Name of lower-level local land-use plan (regulatory plans)	Area scheme	Urban planning guidelines (Orientations d’aménagement et de programmation—OAP).	Lower scale plans are generally used as instruments to implement the PRG. However, some regions have split the PRG into two instruments.	Detailed implementation plan (Rumotomiko Schedio Efarmogis)
Name of permission that assigns/secures developed rights	Planning permission	Building permit	Building permit	Building permit

).

Concerning the core land-use planning tools (

Table 4. Comparative perspective on the existence of core land-use planning tools.

	Cyprus	France	Italy	Greece
Pre-defined (institutionalized) classification of urban uses	No	No	No	Yes Specific land uses
Pre-defined (institutionalized) set of land-use zones	No	Yes Urban areas, areas to be urbanized, agricultural areas, natural and forest areas to be protected	Yes Zones A, B, C, D, E, and F, as defined in the DM of 1968 Each region can further specify those zones and each plan interprets them accordingly	Yes Classification at two levels: General land uses Areas zones (five types)

), Greece is the only country that has a very detailed land-use planning code. This code institutionalizes both urban uses and the land-use zones within which they are included. This overregulation increases rigidity, thereby hampering investments. In order to overcome this weakness and increase flexibility, ad hoc and piecemeal amendments to the national land-use catalogue of land uses are introduced whenever needed. Recently, the latest planning reform has led to a homogenization of broader types of areas, although the new local plans have not yet been enacted, making it difficult to assess their actual outcomes. This land-use system has low flexibility and slow adaptation to the new needs. Italy and France follow a similar approach, in which land-use zones are defined at a broader scale, allowing for the specification of urban uses within each zone locally, on a case-by-case basis. In the French planning system, the drafting of an OAP allows local authorities to influence the future development of a new area open to urbanization, even when the authority does not control the land in the sector. It is therefore a tool for negotiation with potential project developers. Both countries have a medium–high flexibility that offers greater adaptability to local conditions. Cyprus, on the other hand, has neither classification of urban uses nor of land-use zones. This implies high flexibility but less predictability and consistency in planning outcomes.

With respect to the formal revision or update of the upper-level land-use plans (

Table 5. Comparative overview of the land-use plans revision/update.

	Cyprus	France	Italy	Greece
Formal intervals for the revision/update of upper-level local land-use plans	Every 5 to 7 years	The revision is left to the discretion of the municipal council or the inter-municipal body	The revision is left to the discretion of the municipal council	Only 5 years after their enactment and within 15 years
Observed revision/update intervals in practice	Much longer intervals (app. 15 years for the current generation of local plans in the major cities)	Around 10 years, but it can be more	Dependent on regional laws. Plans generally remain valid for over 10 years, being revised on a piecemeal basis	Much longer intervals (based on previous experience app. 25 years)
Formal mechanisms for land-use zoning local amendments	No	No	Through various types of negotiated programs, instruments relying on contractual arrangements and procedural flexibility	Amendments to land-use designations Using the instrument of the special urban plan
Indirect mechanisms affecting land-use zoning (via building regulations).	Yes, through positive planning (density bonuses)	No	No	Yes, through amendments of the building code (horizontal law)

), Cyprus and Greece stand out, having clearly defined update requirements. However, actual practice diverges considerably from formal provisions. In both countries revision intervals tend to be much longer (almost double) than those prescribed by law, reflecting institutional inertia. In contrast, in France and Italy, the revision of local land-use plans is left to the discretion of local authorities, with update intervals typically exceeding ten years. Regarding formal mechanisms for amending local land-use zoning, Greece explicitly allows amendments to land-use designations, thereby providing a direct—albeit often rigid—legal pathway for change. Italy, by contrast, has developed more flexible instruments since the 1990s, particularly through different types of negotiated programs, which rely on contractual arrangements and procedural adaptability that may vary across regions. In Cyprus, no formal mechanism for amending zoning is provided within the statutory framework, as the inherently discretionary nature of the system ensures a high degree of flexibility, thus limiting the need for formal amendment procedures. The French case shows a situation where flexibility in zoning comes from OAP, thus restricted to focused areas, not the whole territory.

Concerning development control (

Table 6. Comparative overview of the core approach to development control and the special tools allowing significant deviation.

	Cyprus	France	Italy	Greece
Development control’s core approach	Discretionary Applications may be assessed against the provisions of the local plan and any other material considerations	Conformative In principle, according to their conformity to the land-use plan	Conformative In principle, according to planning framework	Conformative In principle, according to their conformity to the land-use plan
Special tools for significant deviation from the strategic goals of the upper-level land-use plan (and frequency of use)	Departure application (very frequent use)	Coordinated development zone (ZAC): it may take place within the framework of a local urban plan, but also through a separate procedure	Through adaptable instruments, negotiated agreements, implementation plans, project-based variants	Through special urban plan (moderate use with reference to medium-to-large-scale investment projects)

), Cyprus stands out for its high degree of adaptability in decision-making due to the discretionary approach. The other countries maintain formal conformity but introduce flexibility through exceptional or project-based instruments, highlighting different pathways to balancing regulatory control with development adaptability. offering a structured yet flexible mechanism for usually large-scale interventions.

5. Conclusions

The comparative analysis of Cyprus, France, Italy, and Greece highlights that balancing legal certainty with planning flexibility remains a central challenge that different countries have tried to address in different ways. At the same time, while each of the analyzed spatial planning systems reflects a distinct institutional pathway, a number of elements emerge that help one to reflect on the role of flexibility in planning.

A first key issue concerns the level at which flexibility is embedded. Cyprus demonstrates that flexibility can be integrated directly into the core development control system through a discretionary approach that derives directly from its English-inspired legal tradition. This allows rapid adaptation to changing socio-economic conditions and investment opportunities. However, this model also reveals its limitations, as high flexibility may come at the expense of predictability, transparency, and consistency, potentially increasing uncertainty for long-term planning and public accountability. Conversely, Greece illustrates the risks of the opposite extreme. Its highly detailed and codified land-use system ensures strong legal certainty, but excessive regulatory specificity oftentimes leads to rigidity and slow responsiveness. The frequent reliance on ad hoc amendments to overcome these constraints indicates a structural imbalance, where flexibility is not systematically embedded but rather introduced reactively. This suggests that overregulation may ultimately undermine its own objectives, as it generates informal or piecemeal adjustments that weaken coherence. Between these two extremes France and Italy, despite their differences and the high heterogeneity that characterize the Italian context, seem to offer more balanced and adaptable land-use planning models. Their systems combine a conformative planning logic with built-in flexibility at the local level, allowing urban uses to be specified within broader land-use zones. At the same time, they both make use of special instruments (such as coordinated development zones, planning and programming guidelines, or negotiated agreements) that enable targeted deviations. These mechanisms represent a structured form of flexibility, where exceptions are not arbitrary but are governed by procedures, negotiation, and, often, project-based rationales. As argued by Berisha et al. [17], the way they impact on the overall strategic and spatial coherence of municipal development may depend on the actual capacity of the public sector to retain control over planning decisions, when subject to pressures from market actors.

A second important issue relates to the role of multi-level governance and discretion. Systems that delegate decision-making power to local authorities, as in France, tend to achieve greater context sensitivity and adaptability. However, this requires sufficient institutional capacity, transparency, and accountability mechanisms to prevent uneven or inconsistent outcomes. In contrast, centrally regulated systems, such as that of Greece, may ensure uniformity but struggle to respond to local dynamics.

A third insight concerns the gap between formal provisions and actual practice. In both Cyprus and Greece, legally prescribed revision cycles are not respected in practice. This highlights the way in which the effectiveness of planning systems depends not only on formal rules but also on their implementation capacity. Regular and timely plan revisions are essential to maintaining both relevance and legitimacy.

Overall, the comparison suggests that effective land-use planning does not rely solely on either rigid regulation or unfettered discretion; rather it may benefit from a carefully tailored combination of both. From the four cases at stake, a number of practices emerge that may inspire future research and action:

• Defining broad and adaptable land-use categories rather than overly detailed classifications;
• Embedding flexibility within the plan-led system, rather than relying on ad hoc amendments;
• Providing clear and transparent procedures to allow justified deviations from plans (e.g., project-based instruments);
• Ensuring monitoring and regular updates of plans to reflect evolving needs;
• Strengthening local institutional capacity to manage discretionary powers effectively.

Further research could deepen this comparative analysis in several directions. First, the role of informal practices and negotiated arrangements deserves closer examination, especially in systems where formal rigidity coexists with practical flexibility. Comparative research could also investigate how EU policy frameworks, sustainability goals and climate adaptation requirements are reshaping national planning systems and their balance between certainty and flexibility. Finally, an important avenue for future work lies in identifying governance models that successfully integrate flexibility without compromising transparency and public interest, particularly in the context of increasing development pressures and complex urban challenges.