ΤΠΣ ΔΗΜΟΥ ΚΥΘΗΡΩΝ

KYTHERA URBAN PLAN 2025- RESIDENT REPONSE

The organisers are to be commended for developing this Urban Planning Study and the accompanying land use proposals, and for offering options for public discussion and decision making. The fact that the public have a say in this development is important although, unfortunately, the time frame allowed for consideration and feedback was inadequate at only 5 days. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that public input is being sought on such significant and far reaching decisions.

Scenario B is our preferred option.

Reasons for supporting Scenario B:

We agree with the articulation of “gentle sustainable planning and programming” and the focus on “smart sustainable development”.

We agree that its vital to be taking “measures to control tourism”. The recognition that mass tourism is not suitable for Kythera and AntiKythera is strongly supported.

We strongly support the protection of the wild environment, protection of archaeological sites, protection of agricultural development, and sustainable economic development.

We support developing new ideas for the local economy, focusing on innovation, production and culture rather than just providing services.

Regarding hotel development, we believe any new hotels of up to 15 beds must ONLY be built inside villages. If the villages are substantial (say Agia Pelegia) it makes sense to allow hotels with up to 50 beds, with public consultation.

At no stage should we build any hotels close to remote beaches. This would be a travesty.

We believe that large wind turbines should not be allowed on the island.

We recognise that balancing the islands economic needs with social, cultural and environmental needs is challenging, as such Scenario B offers a useful and concrete vision.

We do NOT agree with the following aspects of Scenario B:

Transport - We do NOT agree with the proposal to attract cruise ships.

Worldwide it is clear that the cruises ships are creating massive infrastructure problems for many islands and regions (Santorini, Venice, Bali, Barcelona, etc). Problems such as overcrowding, pollution, environmental degradation, pressure on water and waste management, and deterioration of local culture and resources are common.

The economic benefits appear to be mixed, depending on the scale, quality and the ‘all-inclusive’ nature of the cruise ship experience (e.g.: tourists not needing accommodation or catering on the island). Some regions are calling to remove or reduce cruise ships, having decided the social and environmental costs outweigh the economic benefits.

Importantly, the beauty and culture of the islands that tourists come to see and enjoy are being eroded over time by cruise ship tourism; Kythera has an opportunity to learn from these negative experiences and create a better tourism model, without the need for large cruise ships.

Conclusion:

There are many aspects to this Urban Planning Study and proposal that are complex and require expert knowledge and understanding of the island and its regulations. As residents of Kato Strapodi (six months a year, transitioning to full time residency) and having worked on the island since 1988, we request sufficient time and opportunity to engage with the development proposal, and to consult with relevant experts, as planning progress.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Harry Panagiotidis & Sonya Pemberton
Kato Strapodi, Kythera