Greece moves to revive transfer of building rights after nearly five decades

The studies cover twelve regional units, including Attica, Thessaloniki, Kavala, Drama, Kastoria, Magnesia, Phthiotis, Argolida and Crete.

The Transfer of Building Rights (TBR) mechanism was introduced in 1979, following a proposal by the then Deputy Minister of Public Works, Stefanos Manos. Its primary objective was to compensate owners of listed buildings for the unused development rights they were unable to exercise due to the restrictions imposed by a property’s designation as a listed building.

In practice, the protection of a historic building prevents its owner from fully utilising the remaining permitted building coefficient. To compensate for this loss, the mechanism provided for the issuance of Transfer of Building Rights certificates, which could be transferred and utilised in other areas where additional construction would be permitted through specially designated Building Coefficient Reception Zones.

However, the implementation of the mechanism encountered significant difficulties, while a series of legislative provisions were annulled by the Council of State, Greece’s highest administrative court. Since 2007, the issuance of new certificates has been suspended, as it was deemed necessary to identify specific Building Coefficient Reception Zones (BCRZs) in which the development rights could be transferred and exercised.

The Financial Burden on Property Owners

The mechanism’s prolonged inactivity has created a significant financial and property-related problem. Owners of listed buildings continue to bear property taxes and other charges, including the ENFIA property tax and its previous equivalents, without being able to exercise the building rights of which they have been deprived.

At the same time, the cost of restoring and maintaining listed buildings can be three to four times higher than that of conventional construction, placing an additional financial burden on property owners.

As has been pointed out, while the benefits of preserving architectural heritage are collective and extend to society as a whole, the financial burden falls almost exclusively on individual property owners. The protection of historic buildings safeguards the architectural identity of cities, strengthens tourism and economic activity in historic urban centres and contributes to improving the urban environment.

According to property owners, the issue is also linked to the constitutional provisions established in 1975, as well as the Granada Convention, which was ratified by the Greek Parliament in 1992 and provides for the protection of architectural heritage.

New Building Coefficient Reception Zones and Concerns Over Additional Construction

The presentation of the first specialised studies at the Ministry of Environment and Energy is being viewed as an initial step towards resolving the issue. Representatives of property owners have welcomed the launch of the process and are calling for the studies to proceed to the implementation stage following public consultation and the completion of the prescribed procedures.

At the same time, they reject views expressed in recent media commentary suggesting that the activation of the Transfer of Building Rights mechanism will lead to a widespread increase in construction density in the areas under examination.

They clarify that the studies identify specific urban blocks that will operate as Building Coefficient Reception Zones, subject to clearly defined terms, limits and conditions governing additional construction. Consequently, they consider it incorrect to equate the mechanism with generalised urban planning incentives or across-the-board increases in building coefficients and permitted building heights.

Their position is that the transfer of building rights from listed properties and properties subject to compulsory expropriation constitutes a special case, as it allows property owners to receive compensation without undermining the protection of the properties from which the development rights originate.

At the same time, they argue that the environmental balance of cities can be maintained, provided that the process is based on specific suitability criteria, maximum limits on additional construction and environmental assessments.

The Call for a Fairer Distribution of Costs

A central demand of property owners is that the responsibility for protecting listed buildings should not remain an exclusive obligation of those who own such properties. They are calling on the State, local authorities and academic institutions to recognise that architectural heritage constitutes a public asset and that its preservation requires a fairer distribution of the associated costs.

They also stress that Transfer of Building Rights certificates do not automatically constitute building permits and that the existence of a transferable development right does not necessarily mean that it must be fully exercised through additional construction.

As they characteristically point out, the dilemma is not a choice between the preservation of listed buildings and development, but rather how the two can coexist within a functional and equitable urban planning framework.

The priority now is to complete the studies and activate the Building Coefficient Reception Zones in order to resolve an issue that has remained outstanding for decades.

For property owners, the prolonged delay is not merely a matter of the financial devaluation of a development right, but also directly affects the ability to maintain and preserve thousands of historic buildings that risk being abandoned and eventually falling into disrepair or collapse.