The new Special Spatial Framework for Tourism (SPFT), with market stakeholders expressing serious reservations regarding both the process being followed and the content of the proposed regulations.
The Association of Greek Tourism Enterprises (SETE), the Panhellenic Hoteliers Federation (POX), and the Hellenic Chamber of Hotels (XEE), as well as local hoteliers’ associations, such as those in Rhodes and Corfu, have submitted their objections regarding the content of the new framework in letters to the relevant ministries, focusing on the blanket restrictions and unsubstantiated prohibitions.
The common thread running through the reactions of all tourism stakeholders is the need to establish a stable, coherent, and growth-oriented spatial planning framework that will ensure legal certainty, predictability, and balanced development of Greek tourism. As industry stakeholders point out, the National Spatial Planning Framework (NSPF) must serve a strategic and guiding purpose rather than functioning as a tool for imposing rigid, one-size-fits-all regulations.
Common Ground
There is a common view that spatial planning cannot be based on blanket prohibitions and unsubstantiated capacity caps, as such choices lead to investment uncertainty, market distortions, and a restriction of the growth prospects for Greek tourism.
One of the main points of contention concerns the new minimum plot size requirements for off-plan tourism investments, which effectively exclude small-scale ownership and lead to a concentration of tourism activity in the hands of a few large investment groups, as argued.
At the same time, they point out that a differentiated approach is needed for each destination, based on the specific characteristics and needs of each region, rather than uniform regulations that ignore local conditions.
In this regard, the provision for maximum limits on tourist beds (such as 100 or 350 beds) is particularly contentious, as these limits are deemed insufficiently substantiated, since they do not take into account critical parameters such as infrastructure, carrying capacity, and the characteristics of each destination.
Emphasis is also placed on carrying capacity, which, as they point out, must be treated as a dynamic planning tool, inextricably linked to the infrastructure, investments, and actual conditions of each region, rather than as a static factor that imposes across-the-board restrictions.
They also emphasize that the role of scientific evidence and transparency in the methodology for classifying regions must be strengthened, with full public disclosure and evaluation of the data.
All stakeholders also make special mention of the need to protect small and medium-sized enterprises. In short, it is emphasized that the country’s tourism development has been based on a diversified mix of accommodations across all categories, rather than exclusively on high-star establishments.
Therefore, policies that link quality exclusively to star ratings or exclude lower categories from development incentives are considered problematic.
Airbnb
Another significant issue is the regulation of short-term rentals, regarding which it is noted that their unchecked proliferation alters the identity of destinations, strains infrastructure, and creates conditions of unfair competition. The stakeholders are calling for the establishment of a coherent strategic framework, as well as for their inclusion in carrying capacity assessments and spatial planning.
Finally, there is strong concern regarding the imposition of additional financial burdens on the hotel sector, which is already burdened by fees such as the visitor accommodation fee and the climate resilience fee.
The imposition of new fees, such as environmental contributions to the Green Fund as outlined in the new framework, is estimated to further undermine the competitiveness of Greek tourism.
Following Crete’s example
Beyond the general framework of reactions embraced by all the sector’s institutional bodies, the local Hoteliers’ Associations of Rhodes and Corfu have also individually expressed their reservations regarding the new spatial planning framework.
Both Associations are requesting that the two islands be treated like Crete—that is, as a large, mature, and strategically important island destination of a specific geographical and developmental scale, without horizontal capacity restrictions, since, as they point out, these would lead to an environmentally detrimental outcome.
Kefalonia is taking a tougher stance, with the Argostoli City Council not only submitting detailed comments to the Ministry of Environment and Energy regarding the new spatial plan, but also authorizing the mayor to even file an appeal with the Council of State if the municipality’s proposals are not accepted.
At the center of the backlash is the classification of areas in Kefalonia, such as Skala, Poros, and Livathos, as Category B “developed tourist areas .”
According to local stakeholders, who align with the comments of SETE, POX, and XEE, this classification entails stricter restrictions on new hotel investments, facility expansions, and development opportunities—a situation which, they argue, does not reflect the island’s actual reality.
It should be noted that, according to the initial timeline, the deadline for public consultation on the new spatial plan was yesterday; however, it remains unclear whether an extension has ultimately been granted or not.