I

I._.... ..•:•: .•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•;•;•;

••.••.•
••••
•••••••
····················•'-
········•·•••••••••a
••••••••••••••••••••
• • •••••••
•• ......
• • •················•·1
• •• ••••••••••••••••••••
• •..• ··················••i!
...•• ••••••• ····•::a
.••.
I ••••••
•• •
. ·•·•·•·•·•·•••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ·1
.•.•• •·····························1
• • • • • • • • ••••••
• ·•••••••·•·•·••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••
.....
:·

I~.
•

. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
. . .
••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••
.. ·•·•·• ••.•.. .
••••••••• . . ·1
••••••••••••
••••••••••••
••••••••• •••·•·•·•·•·
••• ············1
•••••••••
i ••••
....
i·····

••• .
••••

.
• • • ••••
••

••• ..
••••••••
• ••••••
······•
•••
I .i(
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Preface
I
Each year, the Directorate-General for Regional Policy and Cohesion of the European Commission
I launches a number of studies in the field of regional policy and regional planning. These studies
mainly aim at providing a basis for policy formulation internally, as well as the preparation of
programmes and initiatives and a basis for analysing the impact of current or planned activities.
I The most interesting or innovative of these are published in a series entitled 'Regional development
studies'.

I With this series, the Directorate-General hopes to stimulate discussion and action in a wider sphere
on the research results received. The publication of the studies is addressed to politicians and

I decision-makers at European, regional and local level, as well as to academics and experts in the
broad fields of issues covered.

I It is hoped that by publicizing research results the Commission will enrich and stimulate public
debate and promote a further exchange of knowledge and opinions on the issues which are
considered important for the economic and social cohesion of the Union and therefore for the

I future of Europe.

Readers should bear in mind that the study reports do not necessarily reflect the official position
I of the Commission but first and foremost express the opinion of those responsible for carrying out
the study.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I EuropeanUnion
Regional policy
I and cohesion

I
I
I
I
I
I
Regional development studies
I
I The EU compendium
I of spatial planning systems
I and policies
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I European Commission
Already published in the series 'Regional development stu~ies'
I
01 - Demographic evolution through time in European regions (demeter 2015)
02 - Socioeconomic situation and development of the regions in the neighbouring countries
I
of the Community in Central and Eastern Europe
03 - Les politiques regionales dans !'opinion publique
04 - Urbanization and the functions of cities in the European Community
I
05 ~ The economic and social impact of reductions in defence spending and military forces
on the regions of the Community
06 - New location factors for mobile investment in Europe - Final report
07 - Trade and foreign investment in the Community's regions: the impact of economic reform in
I
Central and Eastern Europe
08 - Estudio prospectivo de las regiones atlanticas - Europa 2000
Study of prospects in the Atlantic regions - Europe 2000
I
Etude prospective des regions atlantiques - Europe 2000
Estudo prospectivo das regi6es atlanticas - Europa 2000
09 - Financial engineering techniques in regions covered by Objectives 1,2 and 5b I
of the Community regional policies
10 - Interregional and cross-border cooperation in Europe
11 - Estudio prospectivo de las regiones del Mediterraneo Oeste
Evolution prospective des regions de la Mediterranee-Ouest
I
Evoluzione delle prospettive delle regioni del Mediterraneo.occidentals
12 - Valeur ajoutee et ingenierie du developpement local
13 - The Nordic countries - what impact on planning and development in the Union?
I
14 - Development prospects of the central Mediterranean regions (Mezzogiorno-Greece)
15 - The spatial consequences of the integration of the new German Lander into the Community
16 - The impact of the development of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe on the Community territory
17 - Etude prospective des regions de l'arc alpin et perialpin
I
Studio delle prospettive delle regioni dell'arco alpino e perialpino
18 - The prospective development of the northern seaboard
19 - L'impact sur le developpement regional et l'amenagement de l'espace communautaire
I
des pays du sud et de l'est mediterraneen (PSEM)
20 - Evoluci6n prospectiva de las regiones interiores (y de los espacios rurales de baja densidad
de poblaci6n en la Comunidad)
I
Evolution prospective des regions interieures (et des espaces ruraux de faible densite
de population de la Communaute)
21 - The regional impact of the Channel Tunnel throughout the Community
22 - Prospects for the development of the central and capital cities and regions
I
23 - La notoriete des politiques regionales en Europe
24 - Cohesion and the development challenge facing the lagging regions
25 - In den Regionen fur die Regionen Europas-:-- Ober die Aneignung eines neuen gewerkschaftlichen Arbeitsfeldes
I
At regional level on behalf of Europe's regions - Developing a new field of trade union activity
Agir dans les regions pour !'Europe des regions - Un nouveau champ d'activites syndicales
26 - The impact of structural policies on economic and social cohesion in the Union 1989-99
Die Auswirkungen der Strukturpolitik auf die wirtschaftliche und soziale Kohasion in der Union 1989-1999
I
L'impact des politiques structurelles sur la cohesion economique et socials de !'Union - 1989-1999
27 - Community involvement in urban regeneration: added value and changing values
28 - The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
These documents can be obtained in the language of the relevant country from the addresses given at the end of
the brochure. For further information on other language versions, please contact:
European Commission - DG XVI/F/2 - Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049 Brussels - Fax (32-2) 296 60 03 1
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int)
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication
1
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1997
ISBN 92-827-9752-X I
© European Communities, 1997
Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged
Printed in Italy
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Contents
I
Foreword .................................................................................................................................... 9
I Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................. 11
List of tables.............................................................................................................................. 13
I List of figures............................................................................................................................ 15
List of maps...............................................................................................................................17

I List of sub-contractors and experts...................................................................................... 19

INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH......................................................................................... 21

I Introduction.......................................................................................................................21
The meaning of spatial planning .................................................................................. 23
Terminology...................................................................................................................... 25
I The scope of the compendium..................................................................................... 26
Introduction au compendium........................................................................................ 27

I A OVERVIEW OF PLANNING SYSTEMS AND THEIR CONTEXT ............................... 33

Introduction ...........................................................................................................
·............ 33

I •Traditions of spatial planning........................................................................................ 33

Context and principles.................................................................................................... 37
Constitutionallaw....................................................................................................... 37
The structure of government.....................................................................................38
I The legal framework.................................................................................................. 42
Emerging trends .............................................................................................................. 43
Central-localgovernment relations ...........................,............................................... 43
I Flexibilityand certainty in decision making .............................................................. 45
Governmentstructure................................................................................................ 46
Impact of the European Union on spatial planning ................................................. 47
I B MAKING AND REVIEWING PLANS AND POLICIES .................................................. 51

I Introduction.......................................................................................................................51
Summary of planning instruments............................................................................... 53
National policy instruments........................................................................................... 55

I
I Contents 5
 I
I
Strategic level instruments............................................................................................
Local level instrum,ents ..................................................................................................
Responsibilitiesfor local level instruments............................................................... 63
57
63 I
Framework instruments (local level) ......................................................................... 65
Regulatory instruments (local level)................................................................. •••..••·• 66
General standards.....................................................................................................
Consultation ..................................... :................................................................................
69
69 1
Public involvement...................................................... •····•···•·································....7o
Innovation in consultation..........................................................................................
Cross-border spatial planning.......................................................................................
73
74 1
Non-institutionalisedcooperation..............................................................................74
Formal cooperation...................................................................................................74
Common decision making ........................................................................................ 75
I
Sectoral integration.........,.......................................................................................... 76 .

C REGULATIONS AND PERMITS...................................................................................... 81

I
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 81
Main permit ............................................ ;..........................................................................
Separate permits ....-..........................................................................................................
81
82
I
Making and determining an application (the main permit)...................................... 83
Where a regulatory plan exists..................................................................................85
Departures from the regulatory plan.........................................................................85
I
Where there is no regulatory plan.............................................................................86
Time li_mitsfor determination and objection ............................................................. 86
Public consultation................................ ,....................................................................87 I
Enforcement...................................................................................................................... 88
Appeals and challenges to decisions..........................................................................
Betterment and compensation......................................................................................
88
89 I
Capture of betterment 74 .......................................................................................... 89
Compensation for worsenment 75 ............................................................................ 91
I
D ORGANISATIONS AND MECHANISMS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVA-
TION ..................................................................................................................................
95
Introduction.......................................................................................................................
95
I
Approaches to implementation and public-private sector linkages .. ......... ..... ......
Land policy mechanisms ... . .............. .............. ....... ... ........... ............. .................. ...........
Land acquisition by agreement.................................................................................96
95
96 I
Land banking............................................................................................................. 97
Expropriation or compulsory purchase.....................................................................97
Pre-emption rights ..................................................................................................... 97
I
Local infrastructure development..............................................................................98
Re-parcellisation........................................................................................................ 98
Special organisations and mechanisms for the promotion of development....... 98
I
Special organisations and mechanisms for environmental protection and con-
servation............................................................................................................................ 101
I
E OVERVIEW OF POLICIES............................................................................................... 105
Introduction .......................................................................................................................
The context for spatial planning...................................................................................
105
106
I
I
6 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
 I
I European Union policies ...............,................................................................................ 107
National level policies..................................................................................................... 108
II Regional level policies.................................................................................................... 109
Local level policies.......................................................................................................... 110
Trends ................................................................................................................................
111

I Environmentalprotection and sustainability.................................... .,....................... 111

Controlling and balancing growth ...:......................................................................... 111
Integrating policies..................................................................................................... 112

I Partnership................................................................................................................. 112

I F POLICIES ...........................................................................................................................
115
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 115
Commercial development............................................................................ ·................... 115
I Economic development..................................................................................................
Environmental management ..................................•.................................................
118
,...... 121
Heritage ............................................................................................................................. 125
I Housing ............................................................................................................................. 127
Industrial development................................................................................................... 130
Leisure and tourism ................ ........................................................................................ 132
I Natural resources ............................................................................................................ 135
Transport ........................................................................................................................... 138
Waste management and pollution ................................................................................ 141

I
G TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF SYSTEMS IN OPERATION .......................... 145

I Introduction.......................................................................................................................
The relationship between objectives, plans and decisions.....................................145
145

Discretion in decision making ................................................................................... 146

I Departures from plans...............................................................................................
Unauthoriseddevelopment ....................................................................................... 148
147

A broad classification of systems in operation ......................................................... 149

I How systems work in practice...................................................................................... 150

I H APPENDICES ............................·........................................................................................
Appendix 1
153
References.................................................................................................
153
Appendix 2 Glossary.....................................................................................................
155
I Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Approach and method .............................................................................
Terms of reference...................................................................................
159
161

I ILLUSTRATIONS OF PLANNING INSTRUMENTS.......................................................167

I
I
I
I
Contents 7
I
I
I
I
I
I Foreword
I
This comparative review of EU spatial planning systems and policies summarises and
I compares the findings from the 15 Member State reports. Comparisons are made between the
Member States in order to illustrate similarities and differences in approach across the
European Union.
I The report has been prepared by Plan Local from information supplied by the sub-contractors
and with the assistance of DGXVI. We are grateful to the sub-contractors for their efforts in
I supplying additional information, often at short notice. The review gives an overview of the
systems in place on 1 January 1994, although an indication is also given of recent changes
and trends where necessary. The Commission. has stated its intention to update the

I Compendium in the future. More detailed information on individual Member States is available
in the country volumes.

I Wherever possible this review follows the same list of headings as the individual country reports.
However, comparison between the Member States has raised many issues that are worthy of
further consideration, and so new headings have also been introduced. In particular, a new section

I has been included which considers the 'systems in operation'.

Sub-contractors, Member State governments, the expert advisors and DGXVI have had an
I opportunity to comment on previous drafts of this report. We are grateful for the many comments
received which have improved the accuracy of the review considerably. Nevertheless some
differences in interpretation remain, indeed in a few instances the comments received on the same

I topic have given different advice. We have done our best to ensure that the content of the report
is as consistent as possible. •

I An important lesson we have learned in undertaking this project is the difficulty of describing
any system of spatial planning without ambiguity. This is particularly so in this report which
seeks to make meaningful comparisons between the systems. In reality all the systems, their

I instruments and policies are different, sometimes in quite subtle ways. In order to compare
them, generalisations have to be made and simple categories used. The categorisations
employed do not always do justice to the complex variations that exist, and this is particularly

I so for those systems that exhibit variations between regions within the Member State. So the
level of generalisation necessary for the broad comparisons made inevitably leads to some
over-simplification. Beyond this we have found that there is scope for different interpretations

I
I Foreword 9

I
 I
of the meaning and significance of even the most carefully elaborated systems and policies.
I
The description of any system will depend crucially on the viewpoint taken and the interests
and experience of the viewer. In writing this report and editing the Member State volumes our
perspective has been from the needs of the Commission and those who are keen to learn
I
about systems and policies of spatial planning in other countries.

Vincent Nadin, University of the West of England, Bristol

I
Peter Hawkes, .Chesterton Consulting
Sheila Cooper, Chesterton Consulting
David Shaw, University of Uverpool
I
Tim Westlake, University of Wales
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Acknowledgements
I
The preparation of a Comparative Review exploring the complexities of planning systems and
I policies across the 15 Member States of the EU has obviously required contributions from many
people and organisations.

I The Editors are grateful to all those who have provided contributions, comments and guidance on
the preparation of the Compendium. Directorate General XVI of the Commission has played the
main role in instigating and funding the project, and we are particularly grateful to Maries Camhis,
I Eric Dufeil and Philippe Doucet.

I National governments have provided very useful information and comments to the team. We are
grateful to the expert advisors, Adriana dal Cin, Lyn Davies, Bo Wijkmark, and Marco Venturi for
their extensive comments on briefs, the individual country volumes and the comparative review.

I Other members of the team have also played important roles, Aurelia van Dommelen provided
invaluable assistance in translation and administration.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Acknowledgements 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Listof tables
I
A.1 Governmentalsystems......................................................................................................
39
I A.2 The legal framework and main legislation........................................................................42

8.1 Categorisationof spatial planning instruments................................................................52

I 8.2
8.3
Summary of spatial planning instruments........................................................................54
National spatial planning instruments.............................................................................. 55
8.4 Approaches to strategic planning .................................................................................... 58
I 8.5
8.6
Types and use of strategic planning instruments............................................................59
The main strategic planning instruments......................................................................... 61
8.7 Level of government responsible for strategic planning instruments ............................. 62
I 8.8
8.9
Authorities responsible for local level (frameworkand regulatory) instruments............. 64
Frameworkinstruments (local level)................................................................................. 65
8.10 Regulatory instruments (local level)..................................................................................67
I 8.11
8.12
Regulatory instruments (local level): main purpose......................................................... 68
Opportunitiesfor public involvementin the main plan makirig process at the local level. 71

I C.1
C.2
Main permit ....................................................................................................................... 82
Separate permits............................................................................................................... 83
Determining the main permit............................................................................................84
I C.3
C.4
C.5
Time limits attached to the main permit...........................................................................87
Applicant's rights to challenge decisions.........................................................................89
C.6 Third party rights to challenge decisions.........................................................................90
I C.7 Betterment and compensation ......................................................................................... 92

I 0.1
0.2
Special organisations and mechanisms for development .............................................. 99
Special organisationsand mechanismsfor environmentalprotection and conservation. 102

I
I
I
List of tables 13
I
I
I
I
I
I Listof figures
I
Figure 81 : National Spatial Perspectives.................................................................................. 78

I Figure 82:
Figure 83:
Strategic Planning Instruments .........................................................
...................... 78
Framework Instruments...........................................................................................
79
Figure B4: Regulatory Instruments............................................................................................
79

I Figure H1: Method of producing the Compendium 141.......................................................... 157

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
List of figures 15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Listof maps
I
i DENMARK- Landsplan perspektiv - Development perspective towards the year
I 169
20i8 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2 THE NETHERLANDS- Vierde Nota Over de Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra.............. 170
3 LUXEMBOURG- Programme Directeur d'Amenagement du Territoire (POAT)-
I Centres et axes de developpement ..........................................................................
4 LUXEMBOURG- Programme Directeur d'Amenagement du Territoire (POAT)-
. 171

- Limites des regions d'amenagement et tableaux synoptiques des activites...... 172

I 5 UNITED KINGDOM - Wiltshire Structure Plan Key Diagram (Deposit Draft) ......... 173
6 SWEDEN- Regional plan for Stockholm ............................................................... . 174
7 AUSTRIA- Landsesraumordnungsprogramm Lower Austria ................................. 175

I 8 PORTUGAL- Plano Regional de Ordenamento do Territ6rio do Algarve .............. 176-177

9 GREECE- Geniko Poleodomiko Schedio, Kozani................................................. . 178
10 IRELAND- Development Plan, Dublin ................................................................... . 179

I 11 ITALY- Piano Regolatore Generale, Turin...............................................................

12 DENMARK- Kommuneplan Odense .....................................................................
. 180
. 181
13 GERMANY- Flachennutzungsplan, Berlin ............................................................. . 182-183

I 14 FINLAND- Osayleiskaava,Ankkurin, Lahti ............................................................

15 SPAIN- Plan General (PGOU), Valencia................................................................
16 FRANCE- Plan d'Occupation des Sols de la ville de Charleville-Mezieres(POS). 188-i 89
. 184-185
. 186-187

I 17 THE NETHERLANDS- Bestemmingsplan Stadscentrum Omgeving Kronen-

burgerpark..................................................................................................................
a
18 BELGIUM- Plan particulier d'Amenagement Court-Saint-Etienne (PPA)............ 191
. 190

I
I
I
I
I
List of maps 17
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I Listof sub-contractorsand experts
I
Sub-Contractors
I BELGIQUE-BELGIE Professor Louis G H Albrechts - K U Leuven

I DANMARK
DEUTSCHLIWD
ELLAS
Stig Enemark - Aalborg University
Professor Gerd Schmidt-Eichstaedt - Technische Universitat Berlin
Professor Louis Wassenhoven- National Technical University of Athens
ESPANA
I FRANCE
Mercedes Trenor Galindo - Universidad Pofitecnica de Valencia
Professor G Marcou - Centre de Recherches, Administratives, Pofi-
tiques et Socia/es, CNRS University of Uf/e II
IRELAND-EIRE Michael J Bannon - The Service Industries Research Centre, Univer-
I /TALIA
sity College, Dublin
Maurizio Marcef/oni - Ufficio Speciale Piano Regolatore, Rome
LUXEMBOURG Nicolas Momper - ex. Secretaire, Ministere de l'Amenagement du
I NEDERLAND
Territoire, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Professor Barrie Needham - University of Nijmegen
OSTERRE/CH Dr Friedrich Schindegger - Austrian Institute tor Regional Planning,
I PORTUGAL
Vienna
Professor Artur da Rosa Pires - Universidade de Aveiro
Paulo Pinho - Estudos e Projectos de Pfaneamento, Porto
I SUOMI-FINLAND
SVERIGE
Jussi Rautsi - Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki
Professor Gerhard Larsson - Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
UNITED KINGDOM Peter Hawkes - Chesterton International pie
I Vincent Nadin - University of the West of England (formerly University
of Central England)

I Experts

I ESPANA
•/TALIA
Dr Adriana dal Cin - Plan Design, Madrid, Spain
Professor Marco Venturi - lstituto Universitario di Architettura di

I SVERIGE
UNITED KINGDOM
Venezia, Italy
Bo Wijkmark - Stockholm County Council, Sweden
Professor HWE Davies - University of Reading, UK

I
I List of sub-contractors and experts 19

I
I
I
I
I
I
I Introductionand approach
I Introduction • recognition of the role that spatial planning
can play in promoting sustainable develop-
I In his introduction to Europe 2000, Bruce
ment of the Community's territory and en-
suring that economic growth is balanced
Millan, then Commissioner responsible for re- against the need to protect the environment
I gional policy, said that 'planning in isolation is
no longer possible' (CEC 1991). This was one
of the early and important statements acknowl-
and heritage;

• to address the spatial development implica-

I edging the role of spatial planning in helping to
manage and direct growth, and conserve Eu-
rope's natural and built heritage. Since then,
tions of the integration of the central and
eastern European countries and the south-
awareness of the role that spatial planning can ern and eastern Mediterranean countries

I play in the process of European cohesion has

grown. The main reasons for this are:
with the European Union.

In its promotion of social and economic cohe-

I • recognition of the effects that spatial devel-
opment within a Member State or region can
sion and greater competitiveness within the
. Community, the Union has undertaken many
have on its neighbours or for the rest of the actions and has invested considerable funds

I European Union; with important spatial planning implications for

the relevant national, regional and local au-
• the need to maximise the economic poten- thorities .. The need for effective cooperation

I tial of the Single European Market by ensur-

ing that infrastructure gaps and inconsisten-
between levels of administration within the
European Union, across sectors of activity and
across Member State and regional borders
cies in spatial development patterns are

I minimised; has grown. The increased attention to coop-

eration on and through spatial planning has
been reflected in:
• the need to co-ordinate public investment

I including the Structural Funds, to maximise

its contribution to Community policies, to • the publication of Europe 2000 (CEC, 1991)
intended to provide information on trends in
increase competitiveness and redress re-

I gional disparities; the spatial development of the Community's

territory and a 'framework for cooperation';
• to make the most of opportunities for Mem-

I ber States to work jointly on cross-border or

transnational planning problems of common
concern;
• the further analysis of the spatial dynamics
of the. European territory through transna-
tional and external impact studies;

I
I Introduction and approach 21

I
 I
• .the publication of Europe 2000+ (CEC, mittee on Spatial Development. In anticipation
I
1994) which presented the findings of the of their membership of the European Union,
transnational studies together with policy
options and preliminary findings from the
Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the
project. A small team of experts was also
I
Compendium; appointed by Plan Local to advise on the

• the identification of amenagement du terri-

accuracy of the reports. The method for pro-
ducing the Compendium is set out more fully I
toire (variously interpreted in the Community in Appendix 1. In summary the sub-contractors
languages) in the 1993 Treaty of the Union
as a measure related to the protection of the
have prepared reports describing systems and
policies of spatial planning in their country, to a
detailed brief prepared by Plan Local. The
I
environment;

• the formation of the Committee on Spatial

Development in 1991 which has enabled
submissions have been through an extensive
process of review, re-drafting and editing be-
fore publication to ensure a measure of con-
I
sistency in the presentation of material.
further intergovernmental cooperation on
spatial planning, in particular on the pro-
posed European Spatial Development Per- The Compendium is intended to provide an
I
spective. authoritative and comparable reference on

Despite the clear agreement on, and opportu-

spatial planning systems and policies through-
out the European Union. It does not attempt to
I
nity for, increased cooperation on spatial plan- evaluate the relative merits or shortcomings of
ning across the Union, there is considerable
diversity in the way that planning is conducted
different arrangements for spatial planning.
The terms of reference (See Appendix 2) en-
I
and the policies that are pursued. Arrange- visaged two main functions for the Compen-
ments often differ between regions within the
same Member State which adds further com-
dium
I
plexity. Although there have been a small • the provIsIon of information...to improve
number of comparative studies, understand-
ing about the different instruments and policies
knowledge, and
I
of spatial planning was not comprehensive or • to illustrate some of the problems and op-
complete. The third informal meeting of Minis-
ters of Regional Policy and Planning at the
Hague in November 1991 agreed to the prepa-
portunities which arise as planning policies
are actually implemented. • I
ration of a Compendium of Planning Systems
and Policies. A pilot study was undertaken
(Kolpron Consultants, 1991) which illustrated
. The full list of the Compendium documentation
is given at the beginning of this publication. In
summary it comprises
I
both the potential and difficulties involved in
such an exercise. The Comparative Review of Systems and Poli-
cies
I
Following an open call for tenders, Plan Local
was appointed by the Commission as the
Lead Contractor to produce the Compendium,
15 Member State Volumes on Systems and
Policies
I
and began work in 1994. Plan Local is a joint
venture of the private consultants Chesterton
Planning and Consulting, and the School of
3 Thematic Volumes of Case Studies
I
Planning, University of Central England. The volumes on systems and policies provide

A sub-contractor for each· of the then twelve

a description of the institutions and mecha-
nisms for plan-making, regulation, and the
I
Member States was appointed by Plan Local in implementation of policy, together with a sum-
consultation with the Commission. Each sub-
contractor was approved by their Member
mary of spatial planning and related policies at
EU, national, regional and local levels. Each I
State government, usually through the Com- report follows the same broad format. The

I
22 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I comparative review follows the same structure to adopt that approach here. The Compen-
as the Member State volumes. The sections dium seeks to define more precisely the mean-

I are:

A: Overview of the planning system and its

ing of the terms used in each country, rather
than to suggest that they are the same. Such
terms represent a meaning specific to the

I context

B: Making and reviewing plans and policies

Member State (or perhaps even region) where
they are used, and are not directly transferable
from one situation to another. This is true even

I C: Regulation and permits

where the same term is used in the same
language in different countries. Their use and
meaning will have developed through time in

I D: Organisations and mechanisms for devel-

opment and conservation
response to the particular legal, socio-eco~
nomic, political and cultural forces of that
country or region. For these reasons terms
relating to instruments or practices which are
I E: Overview of policies

F: Policies
specific to a particular Member State are not
translated (as explained below).

I G: Towards an understanding of systems in

operation (Comparative Review only)
For example, in France the notion of amenage-
ment du territoire is inextricably linked to the
administrative and political traditions of this
I Glossary and other appendices country. It is concerned with the regional eco-
nomic planning of the territory at the broadest
The Norwegian Government have published a level. The same words are used in Belgium

I similar volume on planning systems and poli-

cies which also included thematic case stud-
and Luxembourg but have a different meaning.
The Dutch term ruimtelijke ordening is closely
tied to the important traditions of managing a
ies. This was prepared in parallel with the EU

I volumes and under the direction of the lead

contractor.
scarce land resource, and has connotations of
major public sector activity in the development
process which has been the norm in the

I The meaning of 'spatial planning'

Netherlands. In the UK the term town and
country planning refers to the system of regu-
lating land use and development activities of
both public and private developers, and which
I The Compendium reports on 'spatial planning'
and it is important at the outset to clarify what
is largely separate from other sectoral planning
processes.
is meant by this. There are many terms which
I are used to describe particular combinations
of activities in the Member States that are
These examples could be replicated across
the European Union. Indeed, there is unlikely
closely related to the idea of spatial planning. to be complete agreement about the meaning
I First, it should be understood that spatial
of any one term, since there is considerable
overlap at the margins with other related sec-
planning when used in the 'EU sense' does not toral systems of policy making and regulation.

I mean precisely 'amenagement du territoire',

town and country planning, Raumordnung,
Using any one of these terms to describe
systems in different countries, treating them as
ruimte/ijke ordening, or any of a number of equivalent terms that can be translated, or

I other terms used by Member States and re-

gions to describe the particular arrangements
for managing spatial development which apply
making literal translations, would only lead to
further ambiguity. Therefore, the term 'spatial
planning' has been adopted by the European

I in their territories. These terms have been used

in translation on many occasions, including the
Maastricht Treaty, but it would not be sensible
Commission. This is a neutral generic term and
does not equate precisely to any one of the
Member State's systems for managing spatial

I
I Introduction and approach 23
 I
development. The following section outlines Regional policy - (sometimes described as
I
the definitions of some of the key terms which national - regional planning 1) attempts to
have been used in the preparation of the
Compendium. A glossary of terms is also
influence the distribution of economic activity
and social welfare between regions in order
I
provided in Appendix 1. The definitions set out to address 'uneven development', and is
below and in the glossary may be open to
discussion. They are proposed here as' the
usually undertaken by national governments.
Regional policy measures may include direct I
starting point which needs further elaboration investment in physical and social infrastruc-
and agreement. ture, fiscal incentives to influence the loca-
tional decisions of firms, and relaxation of
regulations in areas of decline together with
I
Spatial planning refers to the methods used
largely by the public sector to influence the
future distribution of activities in space. It is
stricter controls in areas of 'excessive de-
mand'. At the European level the EU Struc-
tural Funds have played a considerable role
I
undertaken with the aims of creating a more
in regional policy.
rational territorial organisation of land uses and
the linkages between them, to balance de-
Regional planning attempts to shape develop-
I
mands for development with the need to pro-
ment patterns within a 'region' usually through
tect the environment, and to achieve social
and economic objectives. Spatial planning
a strategy which links physical change with
economic and social policy. Regional planning
I
embraces measures to co-ordinate the spatial
operates at a level below the national level but
impacts of other sectoral policies, to achieve a
• more even distribution of economic develop-
ment between regions than would otherwise
above the local municipal level. It can be
undertaken for administrative areas such as
I
the territories of regional and provincial gov-
be created by market forces, and to regulate
the conversion of land and property uses.
When the Compendium refers to 'spatial plan-
ernments and administrations, or for functional
planning areas such as 'city-regions'. Regional I
planning integrates the spatial implications
ning systems' this means the various institu-
tional arrangements for expressing spatial
planning objectives and the mechanisms em-
and objectives of national policy with condi-
tions in particular localities. It can operate at
different levels within the same area such that
I
ployed for realising them.

Spatial planning encompasses elements of

sub-regional planning takes place within a
regional planning area. Regional planning in-
struments are expressed in plan form but are
I
national and transnational planning, regional strategic and only rarely site specific.
policy, regional planning and detailed land use
planning. National spatial planning includes Land use planning or physical planning oper-
I
the broad development frameworks or per- ates at the municipal level in order to regulate
spectives prepared to guide spatial develop-
ment patterns and lower-tier spatial plans.
the conversion of land and property uses.
Planning instruments at this level are site spe-
I
Such perspectives usually include a cific and may contain detailed provisions in
'transnational'dimension where they seek to
interpret the implications of wider suprana-
respect of land and property use, the form and
detailed design of buildings, conservation and
I
tional development patterns for the nation. protection of the built and natural heritage and
National spatial planning also includes na-
tional guidelines or plans which may not them-
building construction. Land use planning in-
struments can be expressed in a variety of I
selves have a spatial dimension but which forms from general frameworks over large
constrain the options of plan makers at the
regional and local levels. At this level, both
areas to more detailed blue-prints setting out
the precise pattern of development on one I
perspectives and guidelines will be closely building plot. Some Member States also have
linked to the social and economic policies of
government and will seek to co-ordinate activi- 1
See Hall, P (1992).For a fuller explanationof these terms see also
I
ties across different sectors. Goodall, B. (1987) and Johnston et al (1994).

I
24 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I general codes or standards which apply rather than binding regulations, providing im-
across the whole country or region which portant guidance for decisions on proposals

I shape local development and building pat-

terns.
for development and prepared for the whole
of a local planning authority area. Although
these plans share some characteristics, es-

I Terminology
pecially in the procedures for preparation,
they are fundamentally different types of in-
strument. It would be misleading therefore to

I The problem of terminology goes well beyond

the definition of spatial planning. As set out in
use the literal translation of lokalplaner as
local plans, and vice versa. This potential
ambiguity could be multiplied many times
over as different countries use the term 'local
I the introduction to the term spatial planning,
the literal translation of the names of planning
institutions and instruments from one lan-
plan' to describe different instruments.

guage to another can lead to ambiguity and The issue of terminology in spatial planning is
I misunderstanding. Even some of the most
basic terms can have quite different connota-
therefore a complex one, with the meaning of
the same words varying considerably between
tions in different countries and regions. For the Member States and in some cases, re-
I example, a 'region' can mean an area of
territory with a population of five million (as in
gions. Therefore throughout the Compendium,
the use of literal translations of words with
the German Lander and the countries and specific meaning is avoided, in favour of the
I standard regions of the UK) or an area with a
population of less than 500,000 (as in Den-
use of 'home language terms'. Where home
language terms with specific meaning are
mark, Ireland and Finland).The use of the term used they are italicised and explained in the

I "region" in the European sense may contradict

the national interpretation, as in the case of
Germany where the lander are often described
text in their first mention. If necessary the
explanation is repeated in later sections. In the
table legends the "home language" names of

I as "regions" but where regional government

also exists below this level. The 'regional ad-
ministration' can take different institutional
countries are used also.

The authors and editors of the Compendium

forms; it may be an agency of central govern-
I ment, a directly elected regional government,
or a co-operative body of local authorities.
have tried to achieve an acceptable balance
between the need to provide an accurate
and unambiguous account of the planning
Even the word 'plan' can mean in one country systems, and the need for the texts to be
I an instrument which provides policy guidance,
and in another an instrument which effectively
comprehensible, and sensitive to the needs
of readers who will be unfamiliar with the
gives consent for building to proceed. technical terms. There are situations where
I The meaning of many terms is specifically
some flexibility has been allowed for the sake
of clarity in explanation. Where common cat-
defined in the country's law, which may give egories are used for comparative purposes
I the same words very different meanings. For
example, lokalplaner and local plans are literal
in this review, they are based on 'neutral
terms'. Where they correspond to words
translations of each other, and these terms used in particular countries it should not be

I have previously been used as equivalents.

But this may have given the wrong impres-
assumed that the meaning is the same. A
glossary of the most important terms used
sion that they have the same meaning. In appears in each of the Member State vol-

I Denmark lokalplaner are legally binding in-

struments setting out regulations for the con-
trol of land use within a particular neighbour-
umes. The general approach of using spe-
cific home language terms makes the Com-
pendium a more complex document, but this

I hood, and their preparation is mandatory

where major development is to take place. In
the UK local plans are policy instruments,
more accurately reflects the real variety and
richness of systems and policies of spatial
planning in the European Union.

I
I Introduction and approach 25

I
 I
The scope of the compendium the formulation of lower tier instruments, and
I
which may co-ordinate inter-regional spatial
It is impossible to be precise about the equiva-
lent terms for the arrangements which make
development patterns for matters of national
and international significance, (although the
I
specificity of such guidance and. the extent
up the spatial planning system in each Mem-
ber State. There is great variation in the ar-
rangements for planning, and there may also
of its realisation in practice varies consider-
ably, and regional legal frameworks may be I
more important in federal countries);
be • some uncertainty about the precise
boundaries of particular 'systems' because of
the interrelationships with other areas of policy
• at regional levels I
and regulation. For example, in the UK, the
description of spatial planning would require
exploration of the whole of the town and coun-
the production of spatial planning policy
which co-ordinates inter-regional spatial de-
velopmentpatterns and provides a strategic
I
try planning system, or land use planning, and reference for lower tier instruments;
the spatial aspects of regional policy. Various
aspects of closely related arrangements for • at the local authority/municipal level
I
policy and regulation such as environmental
pollution would also require some explanation.
In France, the description of spatial planning
the production of spatial framework docu-
ments which set out general criteria for the
I
will require exploration of elements of 'ame- regulation of land use change;
nagement du territoire', 'urbanisme' and poli-
tique de la ville.. In some countries there may
be a need for explanation of elements of the
the preparation of land use instruments I
which define the type of physical develop-
law relating to land ownership if this is a
method by which land use regulation .is en-
forced. Therefore, there is considerable varia-
ment which will be permitted at particular
locations (the specificity in terms of defined
uses and design criteria varies significantly);
I
tion in what constitutes 'the system'. Neverthe-
less, the central focus throughout is on the
arrangements for managing the organisation
procedures for the consideration of propos-
als to develop or change the use of land and
I
of activities in space. Managing, in this context property;
means both exercising control through regula-
tion but also promoting spatial objectives • at various levels
I
through strategies and other implementation
mechanisms. special mechanisms to encourage the reali-
sation of the objectives and policies ex-
I
Despite the variation it is possible to identify pressed in spatial planning instruments,
common elements of spatial planning systems
across all Member States, and this is reflected
both for development and for the protection
of the environment; I
in the organisation of the main sections of the
Compendium. The following activities are
common to all Member States:
other mechanisms of land use regulation
which may include for example, those re-
stricting land parcel sub-division, tax and
I
• at the national level

the production of spatial planning frame-

other duties to deal with betterment and
compensation, and mechanisms which al-
low for compulsory purchase or expropria-
I
work which provides a central reference for tion of land and property.
I
I
I
26 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Introductionau compendium
I Dans son introduction au rapport Europe • la reconnaissance du role que peut jouer la
2000, Bruce Millan, membre de la Commission planification territoriale dans le developpe-
I responsable de la politique regionale de 1989
a 1994, affirmait que «une planification elabo-
ment durable de la Communaute et dans la
recherche d'un meilleur equilibre entre les
ree dans l'isolement n'est plus possible» (CCE imperatifs de croissance economique et la

I 1991). Cette declaration ouvrait la voie a une

reconnaissance plus large du role de la plani-
protection de l'environnement et du patri-
moine;
fication territoriale dans le processus de cohe-

I sion economique et sociale dans !'Union eu-

ropeenne.
• la reponse aux implications de !'integration
des pays de !'Europe centrale et orientale et
des pays mediterraneens dans de !'Union

I Les raisons principales de cette evolution sont:

• la reconnaissance des effets que peut avoir

europeenne sur la planification territoriale.

Pour toutes ces raisons, !'Union europeenne a

I la planification territoriale dans un Etat mem-

bre ou dans une region pour ses voisins ou
pour le reste de l'Union europeenne;
entrepris de nombreuses actions et a investi
des montants importants dans le domaihe de
la planification territoriale. La necessite d'une

I • la necessite de valoriser au mieux le poten-

tiel economique du marche unique en mini-
cooperation effective entre les differents ~ec-
teurs d'activite, !es Etats membres et les re-
gions frontalieres s'en est trouvee accrue.
misant les ecarts d'infrastructures et les
I divergences en matiere de planification ter-
ritoriale; L'attention croissante portee ces dernieres an-
nees ala cooperation s'est notamment refletee
a travers:
I • la necessite de coordonner les investisse-
ments publics, y compris les Fonds structu-
rels, pour maximiser leur contribution aux • la publication du rapport Europe 2000

I politiques europeennes, pour accro1tre la

competitivite et pour reduire les disparites
congu pour fournir des informations sur les
grandes tendances de la planification terri-
toriale communautaire et sur un «cadre de
regional es;

I • !'augmentation des possibilites de coopera-

cooperation»;

• !'analyse des dynamiques spatiales a tra-

tion entre Etats membres dans le cadre de

I projets d'amenagement transfrontaliers ou

transnationaux pour repondre a des proble-
mes communs;
vers le territoire europeen, au moyen d'etu-
des transnationales et d'etudes sur les im-
pacts externes:

I
I Introduction au compendium 27

I
 I
• la publication du rapport Europe 2000+ qui
presente les conclusions des etudes trans-
avec la Commission, Plan Local a nomme un
sous-contractant pour chacun des douze
I
nationales ainsi que les differentes politi-
ques et conclusions preliminaires du Com-
pendium;
Etats membres. Chaque sous-contractant a
ete approuve par le gouvernement de son Etat
membre. Anticipant leur adhesion a
l'Union
I
• la reconnaissance de l'amenagement du
territoire (dont !'interpretation varie dans les
europeenne, l'Autriche, la Finlande et la Suede
se sont jointes a
ce projet. Un petit groupe
d'experts a egalement ete nomme pour verifier
I
langues de la Communaute) dans le Traite !'exactitude des rapports produits. Le travail
sur l'Union europeenne, en tant que politi-
que liee a la protection de l'environnement;
sur ce projet a debute en 1994. I
En resume, la methodologie adoptee pour
• la creation, en 1991, d'un Comite de Deve-
loppement Spatial qui a encourage une
produire le Compendium est la suivante: I
cooperation intergouvernementale plus im- 1) les sous-contractants ont prepare des rap-
portante au niveau de la planification territo-
riale, en particulier pour !'elaboration d'une
ports decrivant les systemes et les politi-
ques de planification .territoriale dans leur
I
proposition de Schema de developpement pays selon un format predetermine;
de l'espace communautaire (S.D.E.C.).
2) les textes soumis ont ensuite fait l'objet
I
d'un processus de revision, de correction
L'utilite d'une revue comparative et d'edition tres complet afin d'assurer une
homogeneite de presentation lors de la I
publication.
En depit de l'accord general sur le principe
d'une plus grande cooperation, ii subsiste
travers l'Union de grandes differences dans la
a L'objet du Compendium est de fournir des
informations fiables et comparables sur les
I
maniere dont la planification territoriale est
appliquee et dans les politiques poursuivies.
De plus, les dispositions en vigueur varient
systemes et politiques de planification territo-
a
riale travers l'Union europeenne. Le cahier
des charges du projet assigne au Campen-
I
souvent d'une region al'autre al'interieur d'un •dium une double fonction:
meme Etat, ce qui complique encore plus la
situation. • la mise a disposition d'informations;
I
Les quelques etudes comparatives deja me-
nees n'ont pas comble les lacunes en matiere
• la mise en evidence de certains problemes
et de nouvelles perspectives qui se presen-
I
de connaissance des differents instruments et tent lors de la mise en reuvre effective des
politiques de la planification territoriale dans
les Etats membres. C'est pourquoi, lors de la
politiques d' amenagement.
I
troisieme reunion informelle des ministres res- II n'a cependant pas ete question de proceder
ponsables de la planification territoriale a La
Haye en novembre 1991, ii a t§te decide de
a une evaluation des avantages et des incon-
venients relatifs aux differentes dispositions en
I
preparer· un Compendium des systemes et vigueur dans les Etats membres.
des politiques d'amenagement.
En resume, le Compendium comprend la re- I
Suite a un appel d'offres ouvert, la Commis- vue comparative des systemes et politiques,
sion europeenne a selectionne un partenariat
nomme Plan Local et constitue des consul-
tants prives de Chesterton Planning and
les 15 volumes sur les systemes et les politi-
ques dans les Etats membres, et 3 volumes
thematiques d'etudes de cas. Les volumes sur
I
Consulting et de la School of Planning de la
«University of Central England» pour produire
le Compendium en question. En concertation
les systemes et les politiques dans les Etats
membres decrivent les institutions et les meca-
nismes de planification, la reglementation et la
I
I
28 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I mise en oeuvre de la politique ainsi qu'un Ces termes ont ete-utilis~s dans la traduction a
resume de la planification territoriale et des de nombreuses reprises, y compris dans le

I politiques s'y rattachant aux niveau local, re-

gional, national et de l'UE. Tous les. rapports
ant le meme format.
Traite sur !'Union europeenne, mais ii ne serait
pas avise d'adopter la meme approche dans
le cadre de cette etude. En effet, l'objet du

I La structure de la revue comparative est la

Compendium est de preciser le sens des
termes utilises dans chaque pays et non de
suggerer qu'ils sont interchangeables. Ces
suivante:

I A Vue d'ensemble des systemes d'amenage- •

termes ont un sens specifique dans chacun
des Etats membres (ou meme dans une re-
gion specifique) ou ils sont en usage et ne
ment et de leur contexte
peuvent etre transposes d'une situation une a
I B. Elaboration et revision des plans et des
autre. Cela est egalement vrai lorsque les
memes termes sont utilises dans une meme
politiques
langue mais dans des pays differents. Leur
I •C. Reglementations et autorisations
utilisation et leur sens auront evolue avec le
temps en reponse aux conditions juridiques,
socio-economiques, politiques et culturelles
I D. Organismes et mecanismes de developpe-
ment et de preservation
particulieres de leur pays ou de leur region.
Pour ces raisons, les termes relatifs a
des
instruments ou des procedures specifiques a
I E. Apergu des politiques chaque Etat membre ne sont pas traduits.

F. Politiques A titre d'exemple, en France, le concept

I G. Appreciation des systemes en place

d'amenagement du territoireest etroitement lie
aux traditions administratives et politiques du
pays. II traite de l'amenagement economique

I Glossaire et appendices
des regions du territoire dans le sens le plus
large. Le meme terme est employe en Belgi-
que et au Luxembourg mais ii y a un sens
different. Au Royaume-Uni, le terme town and
I La notion de planification country planning evoque le systeme de regle-
mentation de !'utilisation des sols et les initia-
territoriale
tives d'amenagement tant du secteur public
I Le Compendium traite principalement de la
que du secteur prive et se distingue tres
largement des autres procedures d'amenage-
planification territoriale,terme ·qu'il convient de ment sectoriel. •
I definir prealablement.
a
• Des cas semblables se retrouvent travers
Un grand nombre de termes utilises dans les !'Union europeenne entiere. L'utilisation de l'un
I Etats membres decrivent les differentes activi-
a
tes qui s'apparentent la planification territo-
ou l'autre de ces termes pour decrire l'ehsem-
ble des systemes dans les differents pays ne
riale. II est important de noter que la planifica- a
ferait qu'ajouter la confusion. Aussi, le terme

I tion territoriale,tel qu'on le comprend au ni-

veau de !'Union europeenne, ne correspond
spatial planning traduit en frangais par planifi-
cation territorialea ete adopte par la Commis-
a
pas exactement l'amenagementdu territoire, sion europeenne. II s'agit d'un terme neutre
a
I le town and countryplanning, le Raumordnung,
le ruimtelijke ordening ou taus les autres ter-
qui ne s'applique pas precisement l'un ou
l'autre des systemes actuellement en vigueur
dans les Eta.tsmembres.
mes utilises par les Etats membres et les

I regions pour decrire les dispositions particu-

lieres qui sont prises pour gerer la planification
territoriale sur leurs territoires.
La planification territoriale fait principalement
etat des moyens utilises par le secteur public

I
I Introductionau compendium 29

I
 I
pour influer sur la distribution des activites de repondre au probleme des disparites regio- I
dans un espace. II sert a creer une organisa- nales; elle est generalement mise en oeuvre
tion plus rationnelle de !'utilisation des sols et
des liens entre ceux-ci, d'equilibrer les impe-
par les gouvernements nationaux. Les mesu-
res de politique regionale peuvent comprendre I
ratifs d'amenagement avec la necessite de des investissements directs dans les equipe-
proteger l'environnement et de remplir des
objectifs economiques et sociaux. La ptanifica-
tion territoriale englobe toutes les mesures
ments sociaux et les infrastructures, des sti-
mulants fiscaux pour influer sur les decisions
de'implantation des societes, et l'assouplisse-
I
prises pour coordonner les impacts sur l'es-
pace des autres politiques sectorielles, assu-
rer une repartition plus equilibree de la crois-
ment des reglementations dans les zones de
declin industriel ainsi que des controles plus
stricts dans des zones qui font l'objet d'une
I
sance economique que celle resultant des demande dite «excessive». Au niveau de
simples leis du marche, et reglementer le
changement de destination des sols et les
l'Union europeenne,les Fonds structurels
jouent un role majeur dans la politique regio-
I
exploitations immobilieres. Ouand le Compen- nale.
dium se refere aux systemes de planitication
territoriale, cela recouvre tous les dispositifs La planification regionale s'efforce d'influencer
I
institutionnels qui permettent d'exprimer des les schemas de developpement d'une region
objectifs de planification territoriale. a travers une strategie qui lie le changement
physique et la politique economique et so-
I
La planification territoriale englobe des ele- ciale. La planification regionale opere genera-
ments de l'amenagement national et transna-
tional, la politique regionale et l'amenagement
a
lement un niveau inferieur au niveau national
mais superieur au niveau local (municipal). II
I
de !'utilisation detaillee des sols. peut etre entrepris dans des circonscriptions

La p/anification territoria./e national comprend

administratives telles que les territoires des
autorites ou des administrations aux niveaux I
les plans cadres generaux ou les documents regional ou provincial, ou pour des _zones
de prospective qui orientent les schemas de la
planification territoriale ainsi que les docu-
ments des echelons administratifs inferieurs.
d'amenagement fonctionnel telles que les vil-
les-regions. La planification regionale applique
les objectifs de la politique nationale aux
I
Ces documents comprennent habituellement
une dimension transnationale dans la mesure
ou ils cherchent a interpreter les implications
conditions particulieres des localites. Les ins-
truments de planification regionale prennent la
forme de plans strategiques.
I
que peuvent avoir des schemas d'amenage-
ment supra-nationaux pour la nation. La planitication detaillee de /'occupation des
sols, ou planification physique, opere au ni-
I
La planification territoriale national comprend veau municipal afin de reglementer !'evolution
egalement des· orientations au des plans na-
tionaux qui n'ont pas necessairement une
de !'usage des sols et des proprietes. Les
instruments d'amenagement a ce niveau va-
I
dimension spatiale mais qui restreignent les rient geographiquement et peuvent contenir
pouvoirs des urbanistes aux niveaux regional
et local. Ace niveau, les documents de pros-
d~s informations detaillees relatives a 1'utilisa-
tion des sols et des biens immeubles, la forme
I
pective et les orientations seront etroitement et le style des batiments, la conservation et la
lies aux politiques economiques et sociales du
gouvernement et seront produits dans le but
protection de monuments, le patrimoine natu-
re! et la construction d'immeubles. Les instru-
I
de coordonner les activites de plusieurs sec- ments d'amenagement des terrains peuvent
teurs. etre refletes dans une variete de formes allant
de cadres generaux couvrant • des espaces I
La politique regionale, quelques fois condon- etendus a des plans plus detailles articulant
due avec la planification regionale, cherche a
reequilibrer la repartition des activites econo-
des schemas de developpement precis sur
des espaces plus restreints. Ouelques Etats I
miques et du bien-etre social entre regions afin membres ont egalement des codes ou nor-

I
30 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I mes d'ordre general qui s'appliquent a travers
tout le pays ou la region et qui determinent les
cations. Ainsi, dans les cas ou quelques gran-
des categories ont ete definies pour des be-

I schemas de developpement local et de cons-

truction.
soins de comparaison, celles-ci reposent sur
!'utilisation de termes neutres. Cependant,
quand ces termes correspondent a des ex-

I Terminologie
pressions utilisees dans certains pays, ii ne
faut surtout pas presumer de leur signification
unique.

I Le probleme de la terminologie va bien au- •

'dela de la definition de la planification territo-
L'utilisation des termes specifiques dans la
langue d'origine rend le Compendium plus
riale. La traduction litterale des noms d'orga- complexe mais reflete de fagon plus precise la
I nismes et d'instruments d'amenagement peut
etre source d'ambigu'ftes et d'incomprehen-
variete et la complexite reelles des systemes et
des politiques de planification territoriale a
sion. Certains des termes les plus elementai- travers !'Union Europeenne.
I res peuvent avoir des connotations differentes
selon les pays et les regions. A titre d'exemple,
une region peut signifier soit une partie du
La portee du Compendium
I territoire avec une population de plusieurs
millions d'habitants (comme dans les Lander
allemands ou les pays et regions de taille Les dispositions constitutives d'un systeme de

I moyenne du Royaume-Uni) ou une division

territoriale ou vit une une population de mains
planification territoriale varient enormement
d'un Etat membre a l'autre. II y a done un
de 500.000 personnes (comme au Danemark, degre d'incertitude au sujet des limites de

I en lrlande et en Finlande). La region adminis-

trative peut etre une antenne du gouvernement
central, un gouvernement regional directement
chaque systeme particulier au vu de ses liens
avec d'autres politiques et reglementations. II
est impossible d'etre precis a propos des

I elu, ou un instrument de cooperation intercom-

munale. Meme le terme plan peut signifier
dans un pays un instrument qui fournit des
termes de ces dispositions dans chaque Etat
membre. Certains aspects des dispositions
meriteraient egalement des explications. En
orientations politiques et dans un autre, un France, la description de la planification terri-
I document ouvrant un reel droit a construire. toriale necessiterait une analyse des termes
tels que amenagement du territoire, urbanisme
Pour cette raison, les auteurs du Compendium etpolitique de la ville. Dans certains pays, ii est
I ont choisi d'eviter la traduction litterale de
termes ayant des significations specifiques,
egalement important de s'attarder sur les ele-
ments de la loi relatifs a la propriete fonciere
preferant !'utilisation des termes dans la lan- quand ils representent un moyen assurant
I gue d'origine. Quand de tels termes sont
utilises dans le texte, ils sont mis en italiques et
!'application des regles d'urbanisme et d'ame- ..
nagement.
expliques lors de leur premiere mention. Si

I cela est necessaire, cette explication est repe-

tee.
Ceci etant dit, le principal facteur a prendre en
consideration reste les dispositions qui portent
directement sur !'organisation des activites

I Les auteurs et les editeurs du Compendium se

sont efforces de creer un equilibre acceptable
dans un espace. La gestion de ces activites
signifie a la fois un controle de !'utilisation des
sols a travers des reglementations mais aussi
entre le besoin de fournir une description

I precise et univoque des systemes d'amena-

gement et le besoin de rendre ce document
comprehensible pour les lecteurs qui ne
la mise en oeuvre d'objectifs d'amenagement
par le biais de strategies et d'autres mecanis-
mes de mise en oeuvre.

I •conna7traientpas les termes techniques. Dans

certains cas, un certain degre de souplesse a
ete introduit pour favoriser la clarte des expli-
Malgre les differences, ii est possible d'identi-
fier des elements communs a taus les syste-

I
I Introduction au compendium 31

I
 I
mes de planification territoriale etudies. L'or- • au niveau local/municipal I
ganisation des sections principales du Com-
pendium refl_eteces points communs. !'elaboration de documents cadres d'amena-
gement qui expriment des criteres d'ordre
general pour la reglementation du change-
I
Les activites suivantes sont communes atous
les Etats membres:
ment d'utilisation des sols;

la preparation d'instruments d'utilisation des

I
sols qui definissent les categories d'amenage-
• au niveau national
ments autorisees dans certains lieux (Jestypes
d'affectations et les styles de constructions
I
!'elaboration d'un cadre legal d'amenagement autorises varient grandement d'un pays a
spatial qui fournit une source de reference
centrale pour !'elaboration d'instruments de
l'autre); I
niveau inferieur et qui peut coordonner les les procedures d'examen des projets d'ame-
schemas de developpement inter-regionaux
relatifs a des sujets d'importance nationafe et
nagement ou de changement d'utilisation des
sols et des proprietes; I
internationale (bien que la specificite de ces
orientations et leur degre de mise en oeuvre
dans la pratique varient considerablement et
• a des niveaux differents
des mecanismes particuliers qui assurent la
I
que les cadres juridiques regionaux puissent
etre plus importants dans les systemes fede-
raux);
mise en oeuvre d'objectifs et de politiques
exprimees dans les instruments de planifica-
tion territoriale, ala fois pour le developpement
I
et la protection de l'environnement;
• au niveau regional
d'autres mecanismes de reglementation des
I
sols qui peuvent comprendre, par exemple,
!'elaboration de politiques de planification ter-
ritoriale qui coordonnent les schemas de de-
des mesures restreignant le lotissement des
terres, Jes taxes et autres droits relatifs aux
I
veloppement spatial inter-regionaux et qui variations des valeurs foncieres, et d'autres
fournissent une source de reference strategi-
que pour les instruments de niveau inferieur;
mecanismes encore qui permettent des expro-
priations de terrains et d'immeubles. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
32 The. EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I A Overviewof planningsystems
I and their context

I Introduction has some common roots. Most Member

States produced their first planning legislation
in the early part of this Century in response to
Section A provides a description of the diver-
I sity in arrangements for spatial planning in the
Member States. It includes a discussion of the
increasing development pressure and the con-
sequent problems that arose from dense and
disorganised development. Early legislation on
main contextual factors which shape spatial
I planning systems, and trends, including the
impact which the European Union is having on
planning is closely linked to housing and
health reform, where the physical improvement
of cities and towns was undertaken to improve
systems. The discussion follows this structure:
I • traditions of spatial planning;
the social and economic conditions of their
citizens.

I • the context and principles which give rise to

the different traditions;
The scope of planning has expanded consid-
erably since then, especially in the immediate
post war era when more comprehensive plan-
ning, seeking to integrate and coordinate pub-
I • emerging trends and the impact of the Eu-
ropean Union.
lic sector investment, became widespread
across Europe. During the 1960s and 1970s
planning procedures began to incorporate
I Traditions of spatial planning
more opportunities for citizens to participate,
and in recent years the range of 'interests' with
access to the machinery for spatial planning
I The sections that follow (Sections B, C, D, E
and F) set out the general characteristics of
has been broadened. The needs of business
and private sector investors, and the concerns
European Union spatial planning systems and of environmental protection lobbies are both

I policies and their similarities and differences.

Whilst this discussion identifies considerable
playing a more significant role in planning
processes. The challenge for all spatial plan-
diversity, it is important to Rote at the start that ning systems is to manage these often com-

I there is consistency in the recognition of the

importance of providing a policy and proce-
peting interests, whilst contributing to the pros-
perity of the Community.
dural framework for managing land use

I change, and relating this to wider social and

economic objectives. Indeed, the emergence
of land use planning systems across Europe
Whilst there is some consistency in the recog-
nition of the need for spatial planning, a com-
plex mixture of factors has ensured that differ-

I
I Overview of planning systems and their context 33

I
 I
ent arrangements are created in the Member development policy, and those which are more
I
States and regions. These factors include his- narrowly concerned with controlling land use
torical and cultural conditions, geographical
and land use patterns, the constitutional, ad-
and development.
I
ministrative and legal framework, levels of ur- A number of member states exhibit consider-
ban and economic development, and political
and ideological aspirations .. The particular
able formal integration of social, economic,
environmental and infrastructure planning
I
forms of planning that result from such com- within what can be described as the spatial
plex forces are deep seated, indeed they
define the concept of spatial planning for each
planning system. Austria, France, Germany,
Finland and the Netherlands all display some I
Member State. Thus they might best be de- features of integration, especially at the strate-
scribed as traditions of spatial planning.

Given the deep interlinkages between the ar-

. gic level. Other Member States such as Ire-
land, Portugal and the United Kingdom are
establishing further linkages within a more
I
rangements for spatial planning and the socio-
cultural and even linguistic aspects of the
society in which they operate, the characteris-
integrated planning system, although with
varying degrees of comprehensiveness. One
very important factor here is the influence of
I
tics of different traditions are difficult to define European Union funding and the need for this
simply. Many variables might be selected to
help identify the essential characteristics of a
to be tied to longer term integrated strategies. I
planning system. Here, seven broad and inter- Generally, the linkages and overlaps between
related factors are suggested. They are: the management of land use and many other
related policy areas are becoming more com-
I
• the scope of the system; plex. Over recent years there has been a

• the extent and type of planning at national

general trend to extend and broaden spatial
planning in almost every Member State. For
I
and regional levels; example, environmental issues are of increas-

• the locus of power;

ing importance both in rural and urban areas.
The existence of European Union Directives I
has introduced some consistency in approach
• the relative roles of public and private sec-
tors;
to this issue across Member States, but the
relationship between environmental protection I
and the general management of land use
• the nature of the system of law;

• constitutional provisions and administrative

change still varies. For example, in some
countries environmental assessment of devel-
opment proposals may be considered part of
I
the spatial planning system; in others it will be
traditions;

• the maturity or completeness of the system;

related but separate. Infrastructure, notably
road and rail communications, but also water,
I
drainage and telecommunications is another
• the distance between expressed objectives
and outcomes.
example of a policy area which may be con-
sidered part of or separate from the spatial
I
planning system.
The scope of the system refers to the range of
policy topics over which the planning system The extentand type of planning at nationaland
I
has some competence or influence, and the regional levels is identified as an important
extent of integration between the spatial plan-
ning system and planning and investment in
factor because it is here that the arrangements
for spatial planning in the Member States tend
I
particular sectors. In terms of the scope of to differ most significantly. Almost all systems
systems there is a fundamental difference be-
tween those planning systems which integrate
have a similar approach to planning at the
local or municipal level with the use of general I
social and economic planning with spatial municipal framework plans and regulation in-

I
34 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I struments (this is explained in more detail in tice in many Member States for the public
Section B). However, there is considerable sector to take a leading role in the implemen-

I variation in both recognising the need for, and

approaches to national and regional spatial
tation process, particularly for large, complex
or urban projects. Greece, Spain, (with some
planning. Some countries, for example Den- exceptions) and the United Kingdom are unu-

I mark and the Netherlands, have very explicit

spatial plans at the national level, whereas
other countries have no 'national planning'
sual in that they have a much lower level of
direct public sector involvement in the imple-
mentation of new development, but rather

I with a spatial dimension. The structure of

government is particularly important in shaping
responses at these levels and is discussed in
public sector planning is undertaken primarily
to promote and regulate the actions of private
investors.
some detail later in this section.
I The locus of power for the operation of the
The legal framework incorporates a number of
related factors, including the nature of the law
system, relates particularly to the extent to providing for spatial planning, the extent to
I which it is centralised, regionalised or local-
ised. Here, there is a notable move towards
which plans and policies are binding (and thus
the discretion open to decision makers) and
increasing power at the regional level of gov- the existence of any constitutional or other
I ernment. Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and
Spain, all have important powers exercised at
legal rights in relation to land and property.
Many Member States have the majority of the
the regional level, either through a federal or spatial planning legislation incorporated into a

I regionalised system of government. There is

an emerging realisation in many regions
single or small number of Acts. This may also
incorporate environmental and other matters,
throughout the Member States about the need and is a measure of the significance of spatial

I to produce their own co-ordinating spatial

plans, and to integrate the production and
implementation of these plans with the re-
planning within the spectrum of government.
Partly because of their system of law and its
traditions, Greece, Italy and Portugal tend to

I gional development plans and single program-

ming documents agreed with the European
Union. Some countries have experienced a
have a much more fragmented legislative
framework for land use planning and related
topics. There is no doubt that this makes the
measure of decentralisation to the most local comprehension of their systems more difficult,
I municipal level. In considering the decentrali-
sation of power it is important to consider first,
but perhaps of more significance, it may affect
the level of integration of the system. In most
the distinction between administrative decen- Member States planning instruments, espe-
I tralisation to local arms of central government
and to accountable locally elected councils;
cially at the detailed level are legally binding,
and in fact are part of the law, but there are
and second the extent to which central gov- important exceptions.
I ernment retains a determining influence
through supervisory and/or reserve powers. The maturity or completeness of the system
The relationship with governmental structure is refers to a number of factors including:

I again very important as discussed below.

• the degree of public acceptance of the need
The relative roles of the public and private for planning and regulation;

I sectors refers to the extent to which the reali-

sation of spatial planning policy is reliant on • the provision of up-to -date policy instru-
public or private sources, and the extent to ments;

I which development might be characterised as

predominantly plan-led or market led. The
relationship between planning and implemen-
• the degree of vertical integration and coop-
eration between levels of administration;

I tation is very close in some systems, with the

state having extensive powers related to the
realisation of development. It is normal prac-
• the existence of transparent and productive
consultation mechanisms available to incor-

I
I Overview of planning systems and their context 35
 I
porate the many relevant interests in the systems overlooks many of their important
I
planning process, and to integrate the work detailed facets. This applies also to the many
of different levels of administration and other
official organisations.
tables which follow in this report where, for the
purposes of analysis, countries are grouped in
I
very broad categories which are determined
These variables give an indication, irrespective
of the formal arrangements, of how well estab-
by general characteristics only. Some coun-
tries' systems demonstrate a very strong tra- I
lished and responsive the system for spatial dition of spatial planning and so can be easily
planning is in practice. Some countries have
extensive up to date plan coverage and/or the
categorised at the general level. Others may
display a mixture of factors (over time and I
ability within the system to relatively quickly space) and be more difficult to classify. Nev-
produce new instruments that are needed. In
others the plan framework may be incomplete
(in theory and/or practice) and the system may
ertheless, there are some clear tendencies in
approach and a broad classification of 'tradi-
tions' is possible and provides a suitable start-
I
be struggling to keep pace with development
that is happening in reality.The 'maturity' of the
system may also in part be demonstrated by
ing point for further, more detailed analysis. A
fuller explanation of the nature of the system in
each country is available in the individual
I
the extent to which stated objectives match country volumes. Four major traditions of spa-
with the reality of development. This is dis-
cussed in the concluding section of this report
tial planning have been identified here. I
and is treated as a separate factor here. First, there is the regional economic plan-

The distance between the expressed objec-

ning approach. In this case, spatial planning
has a very broad meaning relating to the
I
tives and outcomes is a measure of the extent pursuit of wide social and economic objec-
to which actual development is in accordance
with stated spatial planning objectives and
tives, especially in relation to disparities in
wealth, employment and social conditions be-
I
policies. However, it is important to avoid any tween different regions of the country's terri-
over-simplistic assumptions about the relation-
ship between planning instruments and devel-
tory. Where this approach to planning is domi-
nant, central government inevitably plays an I
opment in reality. It may be that development important role in managing development pres-
does not match provisions set out in plans, but
that different outcomes have resulted from
other important considerations. The main
sures across the country, and in undertaking
public sector investment. The planning system
in France and to a lesser extent Portugal is
I
question in considering the relationship be-
tween objectives and outcomes will be the role
that the spatial planning system has played in
closely associated with this approach, al-
though for a complete picture of the French
system it is also necessary to consider the
I
arriving at the final outcome. This is something operation of urbanisme. Many other countries
which will be dealt with more fully through the
examination of case studies which appear in
pursue regional policy objectives but this may
not be the dominant characteristic of spatial
I
separate volumes of the Compendium. It is planning, and the geographical components
also considered briefly in the conclusion to this
volume.
are usually less clearly articulated. For exam-
ple, Germany has been involved in a consid-
I
erable amount of regional economic planning
The factors introduced above help to define
broad traditions of planning in the European
in the programme of support for the Eastern
Lander.
I
Union, and these are briefly discussed below.
The conclusions give only a very general pic-
ture of the different approaches to planning in
Second, there is the comprehensive inte-
grated approach to spatial planning, which
I
the Member States. All the states, and even the Danish have described as 'framework
some regions within states have their own
particular characteristics. Understandably, this
management'. In this case, spatial planning is
conducted through a very systematic and for- I
very broad categorisation of spatial planning mal hierarchy of plans from national to local

I
36 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I level, which coordinate public sector activity eral public support. As a result they have been
across different sectors but focus more spe- less effective in controlling development. Like

I cifically on spatial co-ordination than eco-

nomic development. The Netherlands is
closely associated with this style of planning.
the other traditions above, it is possible to
recognise change here with government at all
levels making considerable efforts to establish

I This tradition is necessarily associated with

mature systems. It requires responsive and
sophisticated planning institutions and mecha-
more firm planning control and to broaden the
concerns of spatial planning.

nisms and considerable political commitment The traditions noted above give an indication
I to the planning process. Public sector invest-
ment in bringing about the realisation of the
of different styles of the formal systems of
planning. In the final section of this report
planning framework is also the norm. There are further consideration is given to the question of
I two sub-categories within this approach. The
Nordic countries follow this tradition, where
how the systems compare in operation. The
next section discusses the impact of the most
considerable reliance has been placed on a significant contextual factors on traditions of
I rational planning approach and public sector
investment Here, local authorities have played
planning.

a dominant role, albeit sharing responsibility

I with central government. In Austria and Ger-

many, a similar systematic structure and proc-
Context and principles
ess is followed but in these Federal systems

I the 'regional governments' (Lander) also play

a very important role, especially in Austria.
This section introduces and summarises three
contextual factors which play a fundamental
role in determining the characteristics of spa-
tial planning systems in the Member States.
I Third, there is the tradition of land use man-
agement where planning is more closely as-
sociated with the narrower task of controlling
They are

• constitutional law;
I the change of use of land at the strategic and
local levels. The UK is the main example of this
tradition, where regulation has been and is • government structure and responsibilities
vigorously and effectively pursued with the for spatial planning;
I objective of ensuring that development and
growth are sustainable. In this situation, local • the legal framework.
authorities undertake most of the planning
I work, but the central administration is also able
to exercise a degree of power, either through
The individual country volumes discuss a
wider range of factors and their significance for
supervising the system and for setting central the structure and operation of spatial planning.

I policy objectives. Ireland and Belgium may

have had a similar history, although they are
now moving to more comprehensive ap- Constitutional law

I proaches.
Essential characteristics of spatial planning
Fourth, there is the 'urbanism' tradition, which are often established by the constitution of the

I has a strong architectural flavour and concern

with urban design, townscape and building
Member State. Two questions about the con-
stitution are considered here.
control. This has been a significant character-

I istic of the Mediterranean Member States. In

these cases regulation has been undertaken
through rigid zoning and codes .. There is a
• First, to what extent does the constitution
define individual or government rights and
responsibilities? In some countries the con-

I multiplicity of laws and regulations but the

systems are not so well established, and have
not commanded great political priority or gen-
stitution defines specific rights in relation to
development, land ownership and property.
These rights, in turn, influence the organisa-

I
37
I
Overview of planning systems and their context
 I
tion, priorities, and operation of spatial plan- limited to situations where the legal proce-
I
ning. dures have not been properly followed (as

• Second, what structure of government does

opposed to appeals to higher tiers of admin-
istration on policy grounds). Finally, constitu-
I
the constitution establish and how does it tions may set out duties of public authorities,
allocate responsibilities in relation to spatial
planning functions? Governmental structure
landowners and developers in relation to the
issues of compensation and betterment. The I
is obviously a major factor in the operation of questions of rights of objection to planning
planning. In some countries the constitution
may go further by protecting the autonomy
of lower tiers from national intervention.
decisions and other duties are taken up in
more detail in later sections. I
There are many examples where the constitu-
tion establishes basic rights which have impli-
Some countries have few specific provisions
in the constitution which are relevant to spa-
tial planning. Where this is the case, the
I
cations for spatial planning. For example, in the
Netherlands and Spain, the constitutions es-
tablish the right to a decent home for all citi-
. rights and duties of citizens and organisa-
tions in matters relevant to spatial planning
will be established through law. (This is the
I
case in the UK where there is no written
zens. This explains in part the importance that
both systems give to housing provision. In Italy
too, the constitution fixes the claim of people to
constitution, but it also applies in other coun-
tries where the constitution does not cover
I
jobs and homes. Constitutional law in the Neth- matters related to spatial planning). In these
erlands goes further, requiring local authorities
to ensure good living conditions and protect
cases rights and duties relevant to spatial
planning may be less clear.
I
and improve the environment. It can be argued
that in this way constitutional provisions give
increased legitimacy to actions through spatial The structure of government
I
planning, and in some cases give rise to very
specific arrangements. For example, in Ger-
many, the constitutional principle of equal living
conditions throughout the country is reflected
One major role that constitutions play is to
define the tiers of government and their re- I
spective powers including those related to
in a very concrete way through the Finanzaus-
gleich, the mechanism for redistributing re-
sources between the Lander.
spatial planning. However, this is not always
the case, as in France (where the Constitution
delegates this responsibility to the legislature)
I
Constitutions give other rights which may con-
flict with planning objectives and policies. For
and the UK (where there is no codified consti-
tution). In these cases the responsibilities of
tiers of administration below central govern-
I
example in Finland and Portugal the constitu-
tion effectively grants landowners the right to
build on their land. This has been one factor in
ment are decided in national legislation, and
may be changed through the enactment of
new laws which is generally easier to achieve
I
the problem of continuous development of than constitutional change.
summer cottages in shore areas where envi-
ronmental protection objectives are pursued. Each Member State has a unique government
I
In Portugal the right to build results in a structure. It is therefore, difficult to generalise
presumption in favour of building where there
is no plan, although this needs to be exercised
about the impact of constitutional arrange-
ments for government on the practice of spa-
I
through the permit procedures and can be tial planning. Broadly the states can be cat-
overruled by a plan. egorised as federal, regionalised and unitary.
Federal systems provide for shared or joint
I
In procedural matters constitutions may guar- powers between national government and the
antee the rights of both applicants and third
parties to object and/or appeal to the courts
states that make up the federation, although
one level may have complete autonomy in I
against planning decisions. This is normally particular spheres. Some Member States are

I
38 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I not truly federal (that is the bringing together of
states to form a federation) but still have a
structures, where the constitution or other law
delegates varying degrees of autonomy and

I strong regional tier of administration created

by the constitution and law. Unitary systems
vest power in the national government but this
power to regions in different parts of the coun-
try. Co{.qstitutionalarrangements are also often
effectively amended by subordinate legislation

I may be exercised through regional or provin-

cial offices covering parts of the territory, or it
may be delegated to regional, provincial or
and working practices. The governmental
structure for each Member State is summa-
rised in Table A.1. It should be noted that
local government. government structures are undergoing reor-
I This categorisation is further complicated by
ganisation in some countries, and within the
categories there are significant variations as
the asymmetrical nature of many government explained here.
I Table A.1: Governmental systems 1

I Unitary
(with varying levels of decentralisation)
Power resides with the national government, although cer-
tain responsibilities may be delegated to government de-
partments for specific territorial units or to local government
Denmark
Finland
France
Greece

I
Ireland
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Sweden

I Regionalised Power lies with national government and with tiers below
national level, and is apportioned through the constitution or
UK
Italy
Spain

I
statute
Federal Power is shared between national and 'regional' govern- Austria
ments, with each having autonomy in some spheres, and Belgium
able to make law Germany

I 1
A more extensivediscussionof the powers of differenttiers of administrationis given in Wiehler,F. and Stumm,T (1995).

First, in unitary states the general rule is that and Sweden. In every 'centralised unitary state'
I the national government makes the law in
relation to spatial planning and this is then
the governmental and administrative structure
is undergoing some change, especially at the
applied throughout the country. This is broadly regional level. For example, France has made
I the case in Denmark, Finland, France, Greece,
Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portu-
substantial progress in strengthening the re-
gional tier of administration over recent years.
gal, Sweden and the UK. However, the extent

I of delegation to lower tiers varies considerably.

In Greece spatial planning has been the sole
Second, the federal states share the charac-
teristic of power being shared between na-
responsibility of central government, although tional government and another tier - the

I much of it has been operated through the

prefectures. Ireland, Portugal and the UK are
also described as centralised unitary states,
. Lander in Austria and Germany, and regions in
Belgium. In the federal systems important dif-
ferences arise within the Member State as a

I although- in these cases, local authorities do

play a significant role. In Portugal and the UK
there are complicating factors with parts of the
consequence of the autonomy of the 'regional
tier', but again the effect of this varies from one
country to another. The differences are particu-

I country enjoying a measure of autonomy.

Some unitary states can be described as
highly decentralised with regional and/or local
larly marked in Belgium wh_erethe national
government has no competence for spatial
planning matters and the three regions estab-
authorities being granted considerable au- lish their own independent planning law. In
I tonomy. This is the case to varying degrees in
Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands
Austria too, the national government has no
competence in spatial planning, but planning

I
Overview of planning systems and their context 39
I
I
 I
at the national level is undertaken through a Thus, generalising government structure and ·
I
joint forum which has advisory powers, and in its impact on planning systems needs to be
which the national government and Lander act
as equal partners. In Germany responsibility
done with care.
I
for spatial planning legislation is shared be- The result of these varying governmental struc-
tween the national government and the
Lander. National government plays the primary
tures is a complex array of responsibilities for
spatial planning across the EU. The varying
I
role in law making, and the Lander ih admin, role and responsibilities of different tiers of
istration. government across the Member States are
summarised here. Sections B and C give
I
Third, two Member States, Italy and Spain, further details on the plan making and regula-
cannot be truly described as 'federal'but nev-
ertheless have a strong regional structure with
considerable autonomy including a legislative
tion activities of different tiers of government
and administration. I
body at that level. These are described as
regionalised states. The regions have powers
of law making but within a framework of legis-
At the national level all Member State gov-
ernments have some responsibility for spatial I
planning except in the case of Belgium. The
lation set down by the national government. In
both countries the autonomy of the regional
governments varies from one to another. In
Austrian national government also has only
limited responsibilities. At the other extreme, I
national government has had sole responsibil-
Italy five of the regioni have a special status
and extensive powers to govern their own
affairs. In Spain four comunidades autonomas
ity for the planning system in Greece and is
also particularly important in· the UK, Ireland
and Luxembourg.
I
have special status and wider powers. There
are other differences between regions, some
of which may be more dependant on the At the regional level the Belgian regions, and
the Austrian Lander play the primary role in
I
national government than others. The result is
a very complex picture where it is very difficult
to generalise with precision about the system
spatial planning. The German Lander and the
Spanish and Italian regions, also have consid-
erable autonomy from central government.
I
and policies of spatial planning.
The regional (or provincial) structure is signifi-
It could be argued that a number of other
Member States are 'partly regionalised' be-
cant in France, Denmark, Finland and the
Netherlands. In contrast, the regional tier is
I
much less important in the UK, Ireland and in
cause special status and autonomy has been
granted to particular regions resulting in an
asymmetrical government structure. In Portu-
the special circumstances of Luxembourg. I
At the local level, local authorities have the
gal the mainland is a unitary state but the
island regions of Madeira and the Azores have
been granted a degree of local autonomy
primary responsibility for regulating land use
control and detailed plan making across most
I
(although the planning rules set by national of the EU but within a framework set and
government still apply). In Finland the Aland
Islands have considerable autonomy in plan-
supervised by national or regional govern-
ment. The role of local authorities is strongest
I
ning issues. In the UK there are separate in Member States with a unitary government
government departments for Wales, Scotland
and Northern Ireland and different laws for the
structure with a policy of decentralisation. Den-
mark, Finland and Sweden come into this
I
last two. Northern Ireland has had its own category. The role of local government has
legislative body although now suspended. In
France, Corsica and the overseas departe-
been of least importance in Greece. Local
authorities may often cooperate in the strate- I
ments have more independence. Spain, Den- gic plan making function. The norm is for a
mark and Ireland have a form of regional
elected administrations below national govern-
ment which have a role in strategic planning.
large number of very small authorities, al-
though in the UK and Ireland local authorities
are much larger.
I
I
40 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I The governmental structure and division of mechanisms for infrastructure provision and
powers between tiers of administration has economic development or urban regeneration

I fundamental implications for the organisation

of spatial planning, especially the extent to
which it may be described as centralised or
purposes; advising and overseeing the plan
formulation process of lower tier authorities;
and in some instances making plans and

I decentralised. Conversely, spatial planning

can play a crucial role in the efficiency of
governmental structures, through facilitating
decisions for lower tier authorities.

Second, there are those bodies which allow for

horizontal co-ordination of the activities of dif-
I ferent units of authorities, departments and
ministries, and in the vertical integration of
policy coordination and cooperation between
neighbouring local authorities. These are cre-
ated because local government units are often
policy betw~en different levels. Some of the
I questions about coordination and integration
are discussed in the last section of this report,
too small for effective strategic planning or the
provision of expensive infrastructure projects.
Hence there is a need for adjacent municipali-
and the case study volumes give illustrations
I of the integration function in different sectors of
activity.
ties to collaborate for their mutual self interest.
Such bodies exist in Austria where for example,
in Salzburg the 1992 Raumordnung Act cre-
ated the possibility of groups of municipalities
I It is very important to note that there is no
simple correlation between the structure of
to be amalgamated into regional planning
unions for more effective strategic planning;
government and the real locus of power and Finland with the maakunnal/inen liitto; France
I responsibility of spatial planning in practice.
Also, the structure of government and admin-
istrations does not always coincide with the
with organismes de cooperation intercommu-
nale and agences d'urbanisme; and the Neth-
erlands where scope for seven urban regional
I need to plan for functionally coherent territories
or the aspirations of particular localities. The
result is much review, and in some places
plans implies close cooperation between mu-
nicipalities.

I considerable change in the way in which spa-

tial planning function is delivered. One aspect
of this is the widespread use of non-elected
Thus, throughout Europe there is a complex
intermeshing of administrative tiers of govern-
bodies with specific powers, as discussed ment with some responsibility for spatial plan-
I below. ning. At either end of the hierarchy there is a
certain degree of consistency of approach. All
Non-elected bodies have important spatial with the exception of Belgium have national
I planning functions in many Member States.
They can be broadly categorised into two main
governments providing the framework and
structure for spatial planning. At the lowest
groups. First, there are bodies which are es- level, most, (Ireland and the UK are noticeable

I sentially decentralised arms of central govern-

ment which ensure that state policies and
exceptions) have a large number of relatively
small local authorities. Local authorities gener-
programmes can be administered at a more ally have significant spatial planning responsi-

I local level. For example, such bodies exist in

Austria with the Districts; in France with the
bility, with the exception of Greece where the
Prefectures are the lowest tier with planning
regional prefecture and the departement; Fin- powers. Between these two levels is a complex

I land with the almeellinen ymparist6keskus;

Germany with the Regierungsbezirke; Luxem-
bourg with the Commission d'Amenagement;
web of elected and non-elected bodies whose
organisation and powers depend very much
on historical, political and cultural factors.

I Portugal with the Commissoes de Coordena-

9ao Regional; Sweden with the Lanstyrelse;
and the UK with the integrated regional offices.
There is a general tendency for decision mak-
ing powers and responsibilities to be decen-
tralised to lower authorities, though at the
The responsibilities of such bodies are numer- same time there are some centralisation ten-
I ous and varied but include managing the
distribution of resources and other funding
dencies in part designed to create larger and
more appropriate areas for planning.

I
Overview of planning systems and their context 4i
I
I
 I
The legal framework tial planning, notably in the number and com- I
plexity of laws, and the administrative levels at
The legal framework for planning across the
European Union is very complex with a great
deal of legislation at national and regional
which laws can be made. Table A.2 indicates
the major planning laws for each Member
State and an indication of recent amendments.
I
levels. The organisation of the legal framework
obviously has important implications for exam- •
ining and understanding the operation of spa-
Although each Member State has its own
particular legal framework, three broad cat-
egories of systems can be distinguished.
I
Table A.2: The legal framework and main legislation I
BELGIQUE-BELGIE 1962 Spatial Planning Act (All)
1991 Ordonnantie houdende Organisatie van de Planning en de Stedebouw/Ordonnance Orga-
nique de la Planification et de l'Urbanisme (B)
1962 Wet Houdende organisatie van de ruimtelijke ordening en Stedebouw (1962 Spatial Planning
I
Act) Frequently amended by further decrees. Currently under review (F)

DANMARK
1984 Code Wal/on de /'Amenagement du Territoire, de /'Urbanisme et du Patrimoine (last edition
1994) (IN)
1992 Planning Act
I
DEUTSCHLAND

ELLAS
1986 Baugesetzbuch (BauGB) (Federal Building Code) amended in 1990 by Reunification Treaty
and in 1993 by the BauGB Massnahmen Gesetz (Supplement to Code)
1983 L.1337 Act on Extension ofTown Plans and Urban Development Law L.1577/1985 General
I
Building Regulation. Extremely complex planning legislation with many separate laws and

ESPANA
regulations
1992 Texto Refundido de la Ley sabre el Regimen de Sue/a y la Ordenaci6n Urbana and several
laws by Regional Governments or Autonomous Communities
I
FRANCE 1995 Loi d'Orientation sur le Deve/oppement et /'Amenagement du Territoire (Planning and

IRELAND-EIRE
Development Act) Code de l'Urbanisme (code of urban planning law)
1963 Local Government (Planning and Development) Act as amended by subsequent Planning
I
Acts together with 1994 Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations
ITALIA
LUXEMBOURG
1942 Law No. 1150, 1967 Law No. 765, 1977 Law No. 10, Regional Laws
1937 Loi sur l'amenagement des vii/es et agglomerations importantes. 1974 Act on Amenagement
General du Territoire (General Planning Act) 1982 Act on Environment, 1993 Act on Nature Parks
I
NEDERLAND
OSTERREICH
PORTUGAL
1965 Wet op de Ruimtelifke Ordening (Spatial Planning Act) major amendments in 1985 and 1994
Lander spatial planning acts (mostly amended 1992-4)
Many different laws for sector of actlvity defining individual parts of the system frequently amended
I
by further decrees. Main law for spatial planning is the Lei dos Solas Decree Law no 794/76. New

SUOMI-FINLAND
framework law being discussed
1958 Rakennuslaki (Building Act) Latest revisions 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994 and 1996
I
SVERIGE 1987 Plan-och Byggnadslagen (The Planning and Building Act)
UNITED KINGDOM 1990 Town and Country Planning Act (1972 Act in Scotland) amended in 1991 by the Planning and
Compensation Act I
First, many Member States have one funda-
mental law which provides the basis for the
course amended from time to time and sup-
plemented by secondary legislation through
I
regulation of building and the preparation of regulations and orders. The northern European
planning instruments. This is usually supple-
mented by a small number of other laws which
countries tend to follow this pattern which,
although complex, does provide a primary I
provide a specific reference on such matters central reference in the main act.
as historical monuments, urban renewal and
environmental assessment. There may also be
related legislation on matters such as local
Second, a small number of countries follow
quite a different pattern. In Greece, Italy and
I
government powers and the sub-division of
property. Planning instruments themselves
may become part of the law. These laws are of
Portugal the planning legislation is made up of
a very large number of acts, decrees and
regulations which separately make provision
I
I
42 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I for a specific plan or other instrument or membership. Reorganisation of the structure
procedure. In these cases, it is difficult to and responsibilities of regional and local gov-

I identify a unifying legislative framework for the

spatial planning system. These are the coun-
tries which also tend to have a large number of
ernment within Member States has had an
impact on spatial planning systems. More
generally, governments have been seeking to

I different types of planning instrument for spe-

cific situations.
make their spatial planning systems more re-
sponsive to rapidly changing economic and
social conditions, as described below.

I Third, there are the Member States where

regionalised or federal governments exist and
a 'regional tier' of government plays an impor- Emerging trends

I tant role in the formulation of spatial planning

legislation. In Austria, Belgium and Spain, re-
gional government has or is beginning to In undertaking this comparative review a
establish its own legal framework for planning. number of emerging trends have been identi-

I This is having very significant implications, with

important differences emerging in planning law
fied which are likely to have significant impli-
cations for the organisation and implementa-
in the regions, reflecting local conditions and tion of spatial planning systems. The following

I priorities. For example, in Spain, a number of

the autonomous communities have made sig-
discussion considers the extent of consistency
and direction of trends under the following
headings:
nificant progress in establishing their own

I planning legislation and through this have

modified their systems of spatial planning • central-local government relations;
within the framework set by the national legis-

I lation. This approach is most pronounced in

Belgium where the regional governments have
full responsibility for spatial planning. (Compe-
• flexibility and certainty in decision making;

• government structure; and

I tence for regional planning has been devolved

for 15 years). Germany also belongs to this
group because of its federal system of govern-
• the impact of the ·Eu on planning systems.

ment, but here there is a greater degree of

I consistency established through the national
federal law. However, in Germany, reunification
Central - local government relations

has introduced simplified or additional proce- There are two distinct trends in the allocation of
I dures for spatial planning in the new Lander
(which are to be removed in due course).
power and responsibility between tiers of au-
thorities in Member States. One trend con-
cerns the allocation of power and responsibil-
I This comparative review compares spatial
planning systems as they stood in January
ity for strategic planning between central gov-
ernment and regional government (for a dis-
1994. Where systems are in the process of cussion of the different types of regional
I change indications are given in this text and
individual volumes. However, it is important to
administrations see the section on the struc-
ture of government). A second trend concerns
recognise the state of change of much legis- the responsibility for detailed decision making

I lation governing spatial planning across the

European Union. Indeed, one of the key trends
identified in this report is the dynamic nature of
and the changing roles of local and municipal
tiers of administration. These questions are
further complicated because of the complexi-

I planning systems across Europe. The majority

of systems have had major modifications since
1990.
ties of central local relations. Responsibility for
spatial planning decisions may apparently be
devolved to regional or local governments

I The Member States who joined in 1995 have

also been amending their law in anticipation of
whilst control over resources or powers of
supervision and intervention remain at the
centre. Conversely, states that have a unitary

I
I 43
Overview of planning systems and their context

I
 I
structure and therefore are apparently central- detailed land use plans, but also access to
I
ised in practice, may have devolved consider- specific central government funding mecha-
able powers directly to local authorities. These
points should be taken into account in consid-
nisms. Indeed, some Member States require
collaboration and cooperation between the I
ering the following identified trends. tiers of administration to produce a set of

In part, the allocation of powers and responsi-

coherent and consistent plans.
I
bilities for regional planning may be affected At the same time that decision making is being
by issues of subsidiarity and it is, therefore,
unsurprising that there are significant changes
taking place in a number of Member States.
decentralised to the municipal level some
Member States, notably Austria and the Neth-
erlands are aggregating municipalities in areas
I
The predominant trend is to increase the
power and responsibility in respect of spatial
planning regional administrations. In some
to form city regions for the production of urban
wide plans. This course of action is a response
to the difficulties of planning for major conur-
I
Member States, notably Belgium, Germany bations with a significant number of adminis-
and Spain this process is largely complete. In
other countries including Finland, France,
trations, and is an attempt to produce func-
tional planning regions for strategic planning
I
Greece, the Netherlands and Portugal the purposes. In all cases it is dependent on local
trend is established but there are still signifi-
cant powers and responsibilities at the national
communes and municipalities agreeing to col-
laborate.
I
level. The structure in Portugal is being
adapted to transfer powers from central to
regional and local levels. However, the extent
In a minority of countries, there is an apparent
tendency for power to be increasingly central-
I
of the transfer of power varies and it is notable ised, whilst responsibility for local plan making
that Greece, Italy, Ireland and the United King-
dom retain substantial strategic planning pow-
(framework and detailed plans) and determin-
ing decisions regarding development remain I
ers at the national level. the responsibility of local government. In the

There appears to be widespread evidence of

UK increased 'national'guidance appears to
be providing a tighter framework within which
local authorities have to operate (although this
I
the decentralisation of decision-making to low-
est levels of administration namely the munici-
pal level. This is evident in Belgium, Finland,
Italy, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden. In
guidance is prepared separately for the four
nations that make up the UK). Another ten-
dency is the creation of nationally controlled
I
some Member States this process of decen- bodies with specific responsibilities in particu-
tralisation is largely complete whilst in others it
is still being actively pursued. However, it is
lar local areas. The United Kingdom is a
notable example with the creation of urban
I
important to draw a distinction between pow- development corporations and other non-gov-
ers and responsibilities. Whilst responsibilities
are being increasingly decentralised there is
ernmental public bodies concerned with the
implementation of spatial planning objectives
I
also a requirement in almost every Member in limited geographical areas, usually for the
State for plans at the local and municipal level
to be consistent with plans prepared at higher
purposes of urban regeneration. Such bodies
can be independent of, though often work
I
levels of administration. This can be described closely with the relevant local authorities. Ire-
as the principle of 'framework contro/'whereby
local decision making responsibilities are
land too, has a range of nationally controlled
organisations with local responsibilities. I
granted when local framework and detailed
land use plans have been approved by a
higher authority and in accordance with re-
gional and national objectives. Such trends are
Finally, there are a group of countries, which
appear to have reasonably stable systems I
which are described as decentralised, these
discernible in Belgium, and Portugal where an
approved Plano Director Municipal not only
gives the municipality the right to approve
include Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany
(though re-unification has necessitated con-
siderable change in the new Lander with the
I
I
44 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I introduction of the West German decentralised cessfully within a more rigid framework have
system, including the formation of local gov- mechanisms to incorporate flexibility, whilst

I ernment and the new Lander themselves), and

Sweden.
those systems that try to use the rules and
regulations of planning too inflexibly encoun-
ter many difficulties. The discretionary sys-

I Therefore, across much of Europe there ap-

pears to be a desire to devolve spatial plan-
ning responsibilities to more local administra-
tems are seeking to provide greater certainty
to prospective investors and thus there may
be greater similarity in terms of planning

I tions. Whether or not decentralisation of re-

sponsibility involves a real transfer of power is
a difficult question which cannot be fully an-
practice between the indicative and discre-
tionary systems than has previously been
acknowledged. However, this is not to sug-

I swered here. gest that the fundamental differences be-

tween the systems are being removed, but
rather planning practice is seeking to com-

I Flexibility and certainty

in decision making
bine the advantages of flexibility and respon-
siveness with certainty.

A second dimension which characterises Eu-

I ropean planning systems is the extent to
which spatial planning systems provide a
In the UK, which is the primary example of a
discretionary system of decision making there
is now more emphasis on increasing the cer-
degree of certainty in decision making or
I remain flexible and responsive to changing
circumstances. This often relates to the extent
tainty and consistency of decision making
through the introduction of a 'plan-led' system
of development control. The status of local
to which a system is indicative or discretion- policy instruments has been increased. Each
I ary. In an indicative system the relationship
between policy and control is expected to be
local planning authority is now required to
produce an area-wide land use plan. The
determined through a binding detailed land government has also produced more compre-
I use plan. In a discretionary system each
decision is subject to administrative and po-
litical discretion with the plan providing gen-
hensive policy guidance which reflects the
principles of sustainable development. This is
expected to provide greater certainty with de-
I eral guidance. There are advantages and
disadvantages with both approaches. A more
flexible discretionary system enables deci-
cisions conforming to these policy documents.

sions to respond rapidly to changing circum- Elsewhere in Europe, local framework or de-
I stances. An indicative administrative process
in which the permission to grant a permit for
tailed land use plans have been characterised
by their legally binding nature with implied
development should, in theory, confirm deci- certainty and rigidity. Within most of the Euro-
I sions made during the approval of detailed
local land use plans may provide greater
. pean systems there is evidence to suggest
that flexibility in decision making already exists
certainty for investors and the local commu- and there is a general aspiration that systems

I nity on permissible land uses. should become less prescriptive in determin-

ing precise land uses to enable those respon-
All systems incorporate elements of both sible for spatial planning decisions to respond

I ideal types, and this simple dichotomy be-

tween flexibility and certainty is a gross over-
more quickly to the implications of changing
economic, social and other circumstances.
simplification of the situation in Europe as The extent to which development decisions

I planning systems attempt to reconcile these

two apparently dichotomous and contradic-
tory goals. There is a desire to combine the
actually conform to detailed land use plans
and the role of plans in implementation is a
very complex question. Some of the case

I advantages of both approaches and thus

planning practice suggests that systems
which appear to operate reasonably sue-
studies in the thematic volumes of the Com-
pendium suggest that in practice greater flex-
ibility exists.

I
I Overview of planning systems and their context 45

I
 I
In general terms, many countries place great In some countries that formally require any
I
emphasis on the hierarchy of plans and the development to be in accordance with a bind-
extent to which lower level plans should con-
form to the principles outlined at a higher level.
ing plan, decisions to develop can be granted
in anticipation of a new plan being approved.
I
The mechanisms by which flexibility into de- In Italy, the system has not been able to
tailed plans can be introduced are many and
varied.
respond to rapidly changing circumstances
and rigid plans. An 'amendment mechanism' I
which is supposed to be used in exceptional
In order to accommodate many eventualities it
has been argued that some detailed plans
circumstances is now used extensively by
local administrations. An emphasis on sectoral
integration which enables local administrations
I
become overly complex. An alternative ap-
proach is to create legally binding plans which
are more general in character, identifying
to bypass normal planning procedures has
reduced the probity of the system. Thus fun-
aamental departures from existing plans are
I
broad land use types and the detail can be
elaborated later. Such an approach was intro-
duced in the Netherlands with the reform of the
permitted.

Similar examples are evident elsewhere, par-

I
Spatial PlcJnning Act in 1985. Similarly, in
ticularly where flexibility is introduced to deal
France, land identified in the POS as 'NA'
represents undeveloped land currently lacking
with particular issues or problems. For exam-
ple, speedier procedures are allowed for the
I
the necessary infrastructure, but having the
preparation and revision of Bebauungsplane in
potential for future development.
Germany where they are dealing with the
urgent problem of supplying new housing in
I
In many cases law and procedure enable areas of housing need.
decisions to be made which appear not to be
in accordance with the detailed requirements
of the plan. This may be permitted if the
Thus whilst most systems embody the princi-
I
ple of certainty through legally binding plans,
proposed development complies with the
broad principles of the detailed land use plan
or a framework plan. In such cases departures
most have and are continuing to attempt to
introduce greater flexibility into the system. In I
most countries, an apparently high degree of
from the details but not the principle of the plan
may be permitted. In Belgium the municipality
may grant exceptions, provided that these are
certainty is afforded by the legally binding
nature of detailed land use plans. On closer
examination, there is evidence to suggest that
I
small and do not oppose the principal features
of the plan, and that they are approved by a
higher authority (the binding advice of the
decisions can be made which are contrary to
the detailed provisions of plans or in advance
of a plan being put into place. Many countries
I
decentralised government official). Similar op- are discussing the need for greater flexibility
portunities for discretion exist in Denmark and
the Netherlands. Alternatively, speedier and
and discretion. For example, in Spain there is a
general feeling that the planning system is too
I
simplified plan modifications may be allowed, restrictive and over-defined making it difficult
for example, simplified procedures for plan
modifications are allowed to the Bebauungsp-
to comply with. There is a tendency to intro-
duce mechanisms which speed up planning
I
lan in Germany. processes and make the ordinances on build-

In Ireland, whilst the development plan defines

ing and land use more flexible.
I
fixed uses and activities permitted in deline-
ated localities, flexibility is a key characteristic
of the system in order to respond to prevailing
Government structure
I
economic circumstances and resource avail- The structure of government in relation to
ability. Here, zoning may be allowed for a
variety of uses or for decisions to be made as
spatial planning within Member States is un-
dergoing some change, particularly in re- I
a material contravention to the plan. sponse to the recognition of the importance of

I
46 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I strategic and transnational issues. This is evi- creation of inter-ministerial committees, for
denced by the increasing role of regional tiers example, France, Ireland and Portugal.

I of administration as they take on responsibili-

ties from national government (as described Related to changes in government structure is
above), and also arising out of the need to the effect of decentralisation (see Central-local

I provide a context at regional (and also na-

tional) level for bidding for European funding.
r~lations).

I Beyond 'regionalism' there are a number of

other changes taking place in government
structure which affect spatial planning.
Impact of the European Union
on spatial planning

1. • In a number of Member States government

structures and division of power and re-
The impact of the European Union has been
felt in both the organisation of spatial planning
sponsibilities have been relatively stable, for systems (including the introduction of new
I example, Austria, Denmark, Germany
(though the reorganisation of local govern-
instruments) and •in the policies which the
systems pursue. The influence of the EU on
ment boundaries in the new Lander is still policies is discussed in Sections E and F. This
I taking place), Ireland and Sweden. section concentrates on the important impacts
on the systems. However, there are few exam-
• The increasing trend towards regionalisation ples of where European matters in general, or
I where powers have either been devolved
down from central government, for example
the European Union itself, has yet had an
explicit and direct impact on the planning
Belgium or very recently in Greece, or where systems of the Member States, a notable

I groupings of local authorities are co-operat-

ing to prepare regional plans, for example
Finland and Luxembourg.
exception appears to be Ireland (see below).

There are as yet no significant examples of

I • The establishment of city regions as regional

public bodies, but often not as a separate
new formal mechanisms to assist in cross-
border spatial planning, although· this is an
issue being addressed within all the Member

I tier of government, for example Netherlands,

Italy (citta-metropolitane)or Greece (with the
operation of metropolitan planning organi-
States. Cross-border cooperation exists
through joint working groups, which tend to
inform the statutory spatial planning authorities
sations in the two largest cities).
I • The reduction in the number of authorities
in the preparation of instruments for the border
areas within particular countries. (Cross border
planning is discussed in Section B).
with spatial planning responsibility within a
I Member State, whether this is at the regional
level, for example France, where the existing
The European Union has had an influence on
spatial planning in Member States directly
22 regions are cooperating in 7 larger re-
I gions; or at the local level in the reduction of
the number of communes/local authorities,
through:

• legislation, especially Directives on environ-

for example France, parts of the UK and

I Greece (where recently introduced area

councils group several small local authori-
mental matters;

• policy, on matters with a spatial dimension

ties together).

I • Changes at central governmerit level to im-

prove coordination of different sectoral poli-
such as the Trans-European Networks, the
reform of Common Agricultural Policy, etc.;

I cies, for example, the combination of plan-

ning and environment in one Ministry for
example, Finland, Greece and Spain or the
• policy formulation and implementation, no~
tably cohesion policy supported by the
Structural Funds.

I
I Overview of planning systems and their context 47

I
 I
Also the European Union has had a more tions are required to comply with this Directive
I
indirect effect by raising awareness of the is uncertain. What is clear is that these sites are
significance of transnational and cross-border
issues.
being afforded a higher priority in the determi-
nation of development proposals.
I
European Union environmental law is the most
consistent European factor influencing spatial
Other transnational policy measures and poli-
cies defined by the European Union have had I
planning in Member States. Environmental is- important implications for Member State plan-
sues are becoming a powerful force in shaping
development patterns in Europe, both through
their influence on systems and policies of
ning systems and policies, especially the
Trans-European Networks (TEN) and the Com-
mon Agricultural Policy (CAP). TEN have been
I
spatial planning, and also through the interac-
tion of new mechanisms and policies specifi-
cally designed for environmental protection.
noted as important in the more peripheral
areas of the European Union such as regions
of Finland (whose connections with north-
I
The notion of 'sustainability' is not only becom-
ing a major factor for the formulation and
implementation of planning policy, but also for
western Russia are important to the European
Union), Ireland, Portugal and Spain. For exam-
ple, in Spain a national infrastructure plan has
I
the instruments and procedures of planning. been prepared which has important spatial
These factors have been reflected in EU policy
and actions which in turn have helped to
implications for development opportunities.
The relationships are considered in the territo-
I
shape responses in the Member States. rial plans or in the planes directoresterritoria./es

The Directives on environmental assessment

de coordinacion. However, the TEN are also
influential in more central regions. In Denmark,
I
have been influential in all countries, including France and Germany, TEN are reported as
those that only became Members in 1995. The
method of implementation . of environmental
being important in the preparation of national
spatial policy and its implementation, and are I
and other Directives especially on the existing also important in the regional planning instru-
mechanisms for regulating and promoting·
land use has varied. In some countries, for
ments in Belgium.
I
example Denmark,. Ireland and the UK, envi- Mention should also be made of the relation-
ronmental assessment has been introduced
as an amendment or addition to existing spa-
tial planning law. In others such as Finland,
ship between instruments used to programme
investment support through EU funding (in-
cluding the community support frameworks)
I
Greece and Italy, environmental assessment
has been introduced as a separate legal re-
quirement which is connected to the system of
and spatial planning instruments. The precise
relationship is difficult to determine but the
initial conclusion is that it is generally weak.
I
plans and building permits. The result is that in Funding programmes will have a direct spatial
the first case, environmental assessment be-
comes part of the land use regulation and
impact, but this is not always made explicit,
nor do spatial planning instruments explain the
I
permit process. In the latter case, environmen- linkage to funding programmes. The differ-
tal assessment operates separately and is
generally required prior to the building permit
ences in timescale for preparation and the
duration of the different instruments is clearly
I
being considered or issued. an issue. This is an important question that

A number of Member States have drawn atten-

suggests further, more detailed, investigation.
The case study volumes will illustrate the con-
I
tion to .the significance of European Union nections between funding and spatial planning
mechanisms for protecting the environment,
especially those introduced through the Habi-
instruments in particular examples.
I
tats Directive.Potential special areas of conser- One example of a clear relationship between
vation are often recorded and/or designated
through existing spatial planning policy instru-
ments. Whether new instruments or designa-
the spatial planning system and EU funding·
programmes is Ireland, where Objective 1
funding has played a part in the decision to
I
I
48 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I prepare a national spatial planning framework Second, growing awareness of the signifi-
in the National Development Plan. The plan cance of spatial planning in the European

I covers the same funding period as the struc-

tural fund programme ('1994-99)and identifies
context is evident in the recognition by a
number of Member States of the problems
the priorities for major development and in- created by limitations of the spatial planning

I vestment up to the year 2000. Furthermore, the

establishment of eight regional authorities in
Ireland partly arises from the requirement for
system. The limitations may be to do with the
lack of effective plans, mechanisms or poli-
cies to deal with European-wide issues; or

I review of structural fund spending. The new

authorities will take a role in coordinating fund-
ing whilst also commenting on the detailed
the difficulties of tackling cross-border issues
with two or more different planning systems;
or the absence of mechanisms to coordinate
planning instruments (development plans) of
I local authorities.
spatial planning policy and land use regula-
tion with European Union and other funding
As well as the relatively direct impact of the programmes. Delays in the production of

I European Union through law, policy and fund-

ing, the European dimension is reflected in
policies and plans are said to have hindered
the implementation of regional policy and the
other ways in changes to Member State plan- most effective use of funding in some re-

I ning systems. This is evident in two ways. First,

recent changes to planning systems show to
gions. The imprecise nature of regional spa-
tial policy, and limited coordination with plan-
some extent an increasing concern with stra- ning mechanisms to support European Union

I tegic planning, especially at the regional level

which in part reflects the perceived growing
and other investment. has been noted as a
particular weakness of some systems. Gen-
importance of European integration. This con- erally, efforts are being made to improve the

I cern with strategy is also reflected in actions at

the national level. In France the recent Loi
d'Orientation sur le Developpement et
coverage of plans and coordination of invest-
ment.

I l'Amenagement du Territoire (National Devel-

opment Guidance Act) will strengthen national
planning policy, partly in response to the Eu-
Finally, on the impact of the European Union,
there is evidence of increasing cross-border
cooperation in relation to spatial planning is-
ropean dimension. In Germany the Raumord-
I nungspolitischer Orientierungsrahmen of 1992
considers the European dimension. In Italy the
sues, both internal and external to the Union. In
Finland, for example, the regional councils
national government is reviewing regional poli- play an important role in external relations with

I cies to address the structural differences be-

tween the north, central and southern regions.
Russia. In Belgium, France and the Nether-
lands there has been cross-border coopera-
In some cases an increased concern with tion, especially with regard to the development

I strategic and. regional planning is related to

changes in . governmental structure and re-
of Trans-European Networks. Local authorities
in the UK are also co-operating with their
sponsibilities being devolved to the regional nearest neighbours across the Channel. Fur-

I level. For example, in Spain there is increasing

attention being given to European issues by
ther examples of cross-border cooperation on
spatial planning are considered in the thematic
the Autooomous Communities. volumes of the Compendium.

I
I
I
I
I Overview of planning systems and their context 49

I
I
I
I
I
I
I B Makingand reviewingplans and policies
I Introduction within these categories, especially at the re-
gional level. Instead, the categorisation is
I B1 The purpose of this section is to describe
the planning instruments that exist in the Mem-
based primarily on the purpose of the instru-
ments. The categories are summarised in Ta-
ble B.1. First, national policy instruments pro-

I , ber States and identify their similarities and

differences. The very wide range of instru-
ments used to express spatial planning policy
mote the national government's general poli-
cies which may be produced for the whole
country or specific areas. The purpose is to

I makes comparison difficult. No two types of

instrument under different systems will be
alike, and even within a system their form and
provide a general foundation for the elabora-
tion of more detailed strategy and plans. There
are three principle types: national spatial per-
• content often varies depending on location or
I time of preparation. Also, the term 'instrument'
is deliberately used here so that the discussion
spectives or plans which have clear spatial
dimension; planning guidance which gives
criteria to be taken into account in the prepa-
incorporates the full range of documents used ration of plans but which does not have a
I to express planning policy as well as those
commonly referred to as 'plans'. After careful
strong spatial component in itself; and sectoral
plans or guidance for particular activities such
consideration of the range of instruments the as transport and infrastructure provision.
I categorisation shown in Table B.1 has been
adopted for this comparative review. This
Some instruments in this category may fulfil
more than one of these functions.
places the different instruments into four main

I groups according to the form and general

purpose of the instrument. In the individual
Second, there are instruments which are in-
tended to provide a strategy for future land use
country reports the planning instruments are and development patterns. They may identify
I categorised according to whether they are
national, regional or local. The categorisation
here follows a similar structure but differs in
general areas for protection or development
for particular uses but such proposals require
further specification through more detailed

I some important ways.

The categorisation is not based primarily on

planning instruments or regulation proce-
dures. Strategic instruments can be prepared
for different types of area, such as administra-

I the level of government at which plans are

prepared, or the broad spatial scale at which
they operate (national - regional - local
tive regions, city regions or functional regions
(such as catchment areas). Some countries
have more than one tier of strategic instrument

I government). This presents problems because

the analysis has shown that fundamentally
different types of instrument are prepared
with the second tier being prepared for .a
sub-region, but performing the same task
more comprehensively. Third, there are frame-

I
I Making and reviewing plans and policies 51

I
 I
Table 8.1: Categorisation of spatial planning instruments 1
I
Type of instrument

National Policy & Per-

spectives •
Purpose

To identify the national govern-

ment's spatial planning policies
Areas covered

The whole Member State,

Sub-categories

National perspectives
I
significant parts or special

I
and strategy. They include docu- areas. Spatial policy guidance
ments which give general guidance
or performance criteria for develop- Sectoral plans/guidance
ment, and those which are spatially
specific and are described as na-

Strategic
tional plans.
To identify broad spatial develop- Their boundaries are often General strategic instru-
I
ment patterns for areas below tied to the administrative tier ments
Member State and above the mu-
nicipality. They do not generally
identify specific locations and are •
intended to be implemented
of government which pre-
pares them (region or prov-
ince) but they can be pre-
pared for a 'functional plan-
Second level strategic in-
strument for part of area
I
through other 'lower tier' instru- ning region', such as a Sectoral instruments
ments which specify locations.
They are likely to be incorporated,
or be closely integrated with the
coastal zone.

Some countries have more

City region plans I
expression of social and economic than one tier of strategic in-
policy for the area. Strategic plans
may be indicative in terms of the
broad development patterns or
strument.
I
programmatic in identifying spe-

Framework (Masterp-
cific quantities of growth and
change for sub-areas.
To identify a general spatial frame- Generally the whole of one
I
lan) work and criteria for the regulation municipality, but where local
of land use over an area. They are
locationally specific. They may be
binding or non-binding in respect
authorities are small they
may cover several, covering
possibly a 'functional plan-
I
of regulation but are generally im- ning area' such as a town or

Regulatory 2
plemented through lower tier plans.
To regulate the development and
protection of individual parcels of
city.
These may cover areas
ranging from one site; a
Regulatory zoning instru-
ments
I
land. These may be general regu- neighbourhood of one mu-
lation zoning plans, implementa-
tion instruments, or special instru-
ments to secure particular types of
nicipality; the whole of a mu-
nicipality or more than one.
Exceptionally, instruments
Local building control in-
struments I
development. identifying land use zonings Implementation instru-
are prepared for larger ar-
eas covering an administra-
tive region.
ments
I
1
This categorisation covers the statutory planning instruments in use in Member States, but does not include cross border spatial planning
instruments as generally these are newer, emerging informal instruments. They are discussed at the end of the section. Some instruments
I
may fall into more than one category.
2
Control may also be exercised by general codes which can apply over very large areas. even whole countries.

work instruments. These are intended to iden- lation instruments which control or promote I
tify the broad pattern of land uses across a development. They may be used for very small
whole settlement local authority or small
groups of related authorities. They are partly
areas, even individual sites, although some
regulation instruments may cover much larger
areas.
I
strategic in character but they also identify
specific locations on a detailed map. However,
they do not automatically confer development
rights and are generally implemented through
Given the scale of the analysis it is inevitable I
that these broad categories will mask many
the preparation of more detailed instruments
for smaller areas, and/or other permit regula-
tion mechanisms. Further, there are the regu-
more subtle differences between instruments.
The categorisation is offered for purposes of
analysis. Some instruments cut across these
I
I
52 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I categories and may undertake other roles struments with the higher tier normally being
related to other sectors of public policy such binding on the tiers below it. The organisation

I as economic development. In some cases one

type of instrument may be used in different
of the levels of plans is closely related to the
government structure, although in some coun-
ways. It may for example, perform both strate- tries there is provision for joint working be-

I gic and detailed planning functions in one

area. Flexibility in form and content may allow
for an instrument to be used in different ways in
tween administrative units in order to prepare
instruments for a 'functional planning unit'. In
practice there are significant gaps in the plan

I different locations. Thus it is extremely difficult

to make any categorisation of planning instru-
ments completely mutually exclusive. More
hierarchy of a number of countries. Table B.2
illustrates the main categories of planning in-
struments used in each Member State.
detailed commentary on the characteristics of
I the plans and the procedures for making and
reviewing them is available in the individual
The level of integration of the spatial planning
framework with the programmes and plans of
Member State volumes. particular sectors of investment or activity,
I This section deals with statutory spatial plan-
such as transport, environment or economic
policy shows enormous variation. At the na-
ning instruments, that is the formal plans that tional level, some countries have formal minis-
I are provided for within the law of the Member
States or their constituent regions. It does not
terial committees and administrative structures
to support sectoral coordination. Those Mem-
review the many informal planning instruments ber States with national plans, appear, at least

I such as 'development briefs' or 'planning

strategies' that are initiated on an ad hoc basis
in theory, to have the greatest degrees of
sectoral integration. At the regional level many
Member States have both organisations and
by many administrations and which are widely

I in evidence in some Member States. Proce-

dures for consultation in plan making and the
integration of sectoral instruments are ·also
mechanisms to coordinate sectoral pro-
grammes. Very often this involves a degree of
decentralisation of responsibilities to the re-

I discussed. There is a sub-section on cross

border spatial planning which embodies new
and emerging types of informal instruments
gional level government. It is this level which
has witnessed considerable change over re-
cent years, with new mechanisms of integra-
tion being introduced or proposed.
I prepared by adjoining Member States and
regions. (Case studies on cross border spatial
planning are also included in a separate vol- At the local level, the mechanisms for sectoral
ume). coordination appear to be less formalised.
I Local detailed instruments must be in con-
formity with higher level plans, but even though
they depend for implementation on the actions
I Summary of planning instruments
of other-agencies, there are few examples of
formal coordination mechanisms.
There is some consistency across the Euro-

I pean Union in the need for spatial planning

policy instruments at different levels and the
Most Member States have some kind of ex-
plicit policy statements at the national level
objectives they should pursue. However, the which provide a foundation and general direc-

I different contexts and approaches in Member

• States have led to many different instruments
being used and for the overall plan framework
tion for plan making and regulation at lower
levels. This varies from a broad spatial devel-
opment perspective to general policy state-

I to vary considerably. Plan frameworks exhibit

different degrees of vertical and horizontal
integration.
ments on particular topics and to more specific
plans identifying the spatial implications of
social and economic policies.

I All countries have in theory some kind of

hierarchical structure for spatial planning in-
All Member States have some kind of strategic
spatial planning instrument below the national

I
I Making and reviewing plans and policies 53
 I
Table B.2: Summary of spatial planning instruments
I
Member State National instruments
(Member State)
Strategic instruments

One level used Two levels used

Framework
instruments
Regulatory
instruments I
Belgique-Belgie
Danmark *
*B/F
*
*F(2) 0N) *
*
*
* I
Deutsch land * * * *
Elias
Espana
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)p
*
*
*
* I
France * * * *
Ireland-Eire
Italia
*
*
*(p)
*
*
* *
I
Luxembourg * *(p) * *
Nederland
Osterreich
*
*(1)
*
*
*
*
*
*
I
Portugal (*) * *
Suomi-Finland
Sverige
*(p)
*(3)
*
* (*)
*
*
*
*
I
United Kingdom * * *

Indicates that there is an instrument at this level.

(*) Indicates the provision of such instruments in law, but not widely used or In preparation.
*(p) Indicates that the instrument(s) at this level are in preparation.
I
(1) Instrument of Austrian Conference on Regional Planning.
(2) Pending Flemish legislation which attributes a substantial role to the provincial level.
(3) Natural Resources Act.
I
level, which is usually prepared by a regional
administration. These set out broad objectives
and principles for planning, although there is
the area of a whole local government unit, and
provide guidance for the preparation of more
detailed plans and/or the regulation of devel-
I
great variation in depth, coverage and respon-
sibilities for preparation. They may identify
broad development patterns or may be more
opment. Typically, these instruments contain
information on regulations that are relevant to
the whole area, or to specific areas where they
I
programmatic in type in specifying specific
quantities of growth and change in sub-areas.
The Member States with larger populations and
will not be subject to further elaboration in
detailed plans. I
federal structures, for example, Germany, tend
to have the most formal strategic planning
structures, with the regional government being
Most Member States also use regulatory
instruments with site specific allocations or I
responsible for a major tier of strategic instru- zoning to regulate development, building and
ment. Some Member States have complete
coverage of substantial strategic regional
land use. There is a little more consistency
here in the approaches adopted by different I
plans, and in some cases there are two levels of countries, although there is extensive variation
strategic plan. In the countries with smaller
populations, the strategic planning instruments
are more likely to be a responsibility of local
in their detailed characteristics. Exceptionally
•there are instruments identifying land use zon- I
ings for much larger areas, such as sub-
government, with different municipalities coop-
erating through a joint forum, although the plans
may cover a considerable geographical area.
regions and which are prepared by regional
tiers of government as in Belgium. Some plan- I
ning instruments may perform the 'framework'

All Member States make use of framework

instruments. These are prepared for at least
and 'detailed' role in the same document or
may be used for different purposes depending I
on the circumstances.

I
54 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I Coverage of regulatory instruments varies but planning instruments, regulations and imple-
is often limited to. those locations where they mentation activities across the whole country.

I are required to facilitate or directly implement

development. Departures from local frame-
work and regulatory instruments are common-
For example, Denmark uses a number of
instruments at the level of the Member State.
The exception is Belgium where spatial plan-

I place and in practice most Member States or

regional governments have modified their sys-
tems to enable them to be made.
ning is solely the responsibility of the regional
governments.

I All Member States include provision for con-

sultation and participation during the proce-
A wide variety of types of instruments are used
in different combinations by the Member
States. In this review, the instruments are di-
dure for the preparation and adoption of plans,
I especially at the local level. Consultation gen-
erally takes place with all interested parties,
vided into those which provide an indicative
spatial perspective about the use of territory
across the Member State, those which give
and there are opportunities for formal objec-
I tion by those affected prior to the plan being
adopted.
general guidance on spatial planning, but are
not locationally specific, and those which are
related to specific issues or sectors of land

I National policy instruments

use. There is obviously some overlap in pur-
pose between what is called a national instru-
ment in a small Member State and the strate-
gic instruments produced for regions of the
I In most Member States, governments prepare
some measure of spatial guidance at the
larger countries. Table B.3 identifies the main
types of national instruments used by each
national level which acts as a framework for Member State.
I Table B.3: National spatial planning instruments

I Type of instrument National perspectives 1

or plans
General policy guidance Sectoral or issue
based guidance
No national
instruments

Purpose Set out the broad pattern Set out general policies Set out policy (which

I of spatial development to apply across the

country
may be spatially spe-
cific) for particular topics
such as infrastructure

I
Member States Austria Austria Austria Belgium
Denmark Denmark Denmark
Finland Germany Finland
France Italy France
Germany Luxembourg Germany

I . Greece
Ireland
Netherlands
Sweden
UK
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal

I Spain
Sweden
UK
1

I
Nationalperspectivesmay be part of an economic planning or regional policy document, and considerablevariationin the depth of analysis
in these documents is evident.

Different objectives of national policy may be The main examples are the French Plan de la
I met in one instrument. In some countries a
national 'development plan or programme'
Nation (not adopted after 1993) and the
Schema national d'amenagement et de de-
which has the broad objectives of steering veloppement du territoire which is provided
I social and economic change for the country,
also provides a framework for spatial policy.
by the 1995 Act and which is now being
prepared. Another example are the Greek

I
Making and reviewing plans and policies 55
I
 I
Pentaeti, the quinquennial development pro- national perspective. Germany, Italy and the UK I
grammes, the last dating from 1983-87 and all produce national policy guidance in the form
not as yet updated. In Greece, a regional
development plan, produced as an input to
of general objectives or principles that the spa-
tial planning system should pursue. In Germany, I
the Community Support Framework has ef- the Raumordnungsbericht, the Federal Spatial
fectively taken the place of five year plans.
Ireland has a National Development Plan
which provides a development· strategy for
Planning Report, monitors and reports on cur-
rent national policy on a broad range of topics of
relevance to spatial planning. It is intended to be
I
the whole country and runs from 1994 to
1999. It sets out the government's priorities
for major development and both investment
updated every four years, but reunification has
led to three reviews since 1990. Such instru-
ments may also provide guidance at. the na-
I
and spatial planning instruments must have tional level about how particularly important is-
regard to its priorities. sues or specific topics should be addressed at
the local level. For example, Finland has the
I
Several Member States have produced, or are Rantojensuojeluohjelma, the shoreline protec-
producing a broad spatial development per-
spective at the national level. Austria has the
tion programme, and the UK, has planning
policy guidance notes, giving very broad guid-
I
Osterreichisches Raumordnungskonzept 1991, ance about a range of spatial planning topics
a 'regional planning concept', which provides
guidance for territorial and sectoral planning
such as town centres and retail development. In
the UK government departments publish
I
policy. The Danish Landsplan perspektiv sets 'national'policy guidance which usually applies
out the current national planning policies and
goals for future spatial development up to 2018
within one of the four countries that make up the
UK. In Portugal, national planning instruments I
and Finland's spatial structure and land use designate and protect areas of ecological value
2017 has a similar function. Germany's Raumor-
dnungspolitischer Orientierungsrahmen, 1992
or high agricultural quality such as the Reserva
Ecol6gica Nacional (REN), the national nature
reseNes.
I
state general principles for spatial develop-
ment. Sweden's Natural Resources Act pro-
vides national spatial guidance, mostly in rela-
tion to areas of national significance. Luxem-
In Greece and Spain the law permits the
production of national spatial planning instru-
I
bourg uses two national instruments. The first,
the Programme Oirecteur, approved in 1978 and
revised in 1988, sets very broad objectives for
ments, but they have not been prepared.

A number of the sectoral policy instruments at

I
economic as well as spatial development, in- national level are directed specifically at infra- •
cluding provisions for public infrastructure and
facilities. The second tier comprises the Plan
structure provision. Spain's Plan Director de
lnfraestructuras, looks ahead 15 years in the
I
d'amenagement global, which sp·ecifies gen- direction of major infrastructure development.
eral policies to apply to particular areas, and the
Plan d'amenagement partiel which specifies
In France, the Schemas directeurs
d'infrastructures are intended to ensure the
I
policy for particular sectors. The significance of long term coherence of major infrastructure
national spatial perspectives in exerting influ-
ence on lower tier instruments varies consider-
networks. Some of the German national sec-
toral planning instruments, the Fachpla.ne
I
ably. Examples of national instruments that (sector plans), deal with infrastructure in a
might properly be described as a 'national spa-
• tial plan' and which exert a deep influence on
similar way (e.g. the Bundesverkehrswege
Plan for federal transport infrastructure). I
lower tiers of government are the Landsplan
Perspektiv in Denmark and VINEX: Vierde Nata
Over de Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra in the Neth-
erlands.
Almost all planning instruments at this level are
prepared by the Member State government, I
sometimes with the help of special organisa-

A number of Member States produce more gen-

eral policy guidance, sometimes in addition to a
tions or committees. For example, in Austria,
the Osterreiche Raumordnungskonferenz
(OROK) is the National Council on Spatial
I
I
56 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I Planning which is a joint organisation of the
federal government and Lander with advisory
tors where the spatial dimension is most
obvious - notably infrastructure. Neverthe-

I powers on spatial planning policies at the

national level. It is usual for the national gov-
ernment to consult with other tiers of govern~
less, there is evidence of increasing attention
to spatial planning at the national level. This
is a topic which is worthy of further investi-

I ment, official organisations and major interest

groups, although consultation with the general
public is not usually undertaken. Most national
gation, especially in identifying the spatial
components of national sectoral policy state-
ments and the various forms of expression of
instruments have the status of guidance, spatial policy.
I which must be taken into account in the prepa-
ration of lower tier plans. In some countries
some instruments at this level are formally
I binding on lower tiers, as for example, in
Denmark.
Strategic level instruments

All Member States have spatial planning in-

I From this brief survey of national spatial
planning policy instruments, it is evident that
struments which lie between national policy
and local instruments that identify broad
there is no consistent pattern in the ap- goals and objectives, principles or models

I proach across the Member States. Only a

few countries have identified the need for a
for the physical development of the territory.
These instruments often identify the land use
comprehensive, integrated and explicit spa- and development implications of social and

I tial planning framework at the national level,

let alone actually produced such a docu-
economic policy, and reflect the political pri-
orities of the Member State and/or regional
government.
ment. The principal exceptions to this are

I Denmark and the Netherlands where instru-

ments expressing the spatial elements of
national policy, and linkages to the wider
Most of these strategic instruments are called
'regional plans', but the definition of

I European territory are clearly articulated in

what can be described as a national spatial
plan. Extracts from each of these documents
'regional'varies considerably across the Mem-
ber States. Sometimes it is linked to a regional
tier of government, the first level below national
are illustrated in Figure B1. However, it is government, in which case the regional or
I evident that most other countries make use
of policy instruments at the national level to
state government takes the lead in the making
of strategic policy. In other Member States the
express elements of spatial policy. The dif- 'region' has been defined only for planning
I ference is that in these cases the spatial
policy elements form part of a wider national
purposes and there is no parallel tier of admin-
istration. In these cases, the strategic instru-
strategy and are generally less distinct or ments are prepared either by the Member
I explicitly elaborated, and/or are produced for
particular sectors of activity only. It is per-
State government or through cooperative ar-
rangements between the local authorities. A
haps no coincidence that a national spatial small number of Member States have hybrid

I policy framework is most clearly expressed in

two small Member States which have intense
arrangements which formally involve local gov-
ernment and central government at different
stages of the production of strategic regional
problems of land use management, mature

I planning systems and institutions, and a

culture which fosters a coordinated and care-
fully regulated approach. Elsewhere, physi-
plans.

There is a great variety of strategic regional

I cal, political and institutional conditions make

the preparation of an explicit national spatial
plan much more difficult. Thus spatial policy
spatial planning across the European Union,
both in terms of the types of instruments
provided for by the law and the priority given
at national level is limited to general guid- to their preparation. Types . of instruments
I ance - with only limited locational and
spatial components - or targeted on sec-
vary according to the geographical area cov-
ered, their form and content, objectives and

I
Making and reviewing plans and policies 57
I
 I
the responsibilities for their production and ferent types of instruments and different atti-
I
approval. The variety is compounded by the tudes and priorities about preparing them.
federal systems of government in some
Member States. Here the regions do not only
This is the case in Belgium, Spain and the
UK. I
produce the policy but may have an impor-
tant role in establishing the legislation under
which it is made. They may also have con-
siderable autonomy in the way they ap-
Three broad types of approach can be identi-
fied as shown in Table 8.4, according to who
undertakes the strategic planning and whether
I
proach the question of strategic planning.
Thus, the individual 'regions' may have dif-
or not the instruments are widely used or
completed. I
Table B.4: Approaches to strategic planning

Mostly undertaken
by national government
Mostly undertaken
by regional government
Mostly undertaken
by provincial government
I
or regional groupings

Widely used Luxembourg Austria

of local authorities

Denmark
I
Belgium Finland
Germany Netherlands
Sweden (1)
UK (2)
I
Not fully implemented Greece France
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
I
Spain
(1) The county administrative board.
(2) Final publication and content is the responsibility of central government.
I
First, there are a small number of Member
States where national government plays the
variation in attention given to strategic plan-
ning in different parts of the country, as in
I
major role in undertaking the preparation of Spain where regional plans have been pre-
strategic planning instruments. In Greece and
Portugal these instruments are not widely im-
pared for some regions including the Canary
Islands, but in others they have not generally
I
plemented. Luxembourg is a special case. been a priority.
Because of the size of the country, strategic
planning is a function of the national govern- Thirdly, there are those Member States where
I
ment, and the programme directeur combines strategic planning is mostly a function of local
the functions of strategic planning at national
and regional levels.
government, and is generally undertaken for
much smaller populations (but sometimes
I
over very large areas). The Nordic countries all
Secondly, there is a group of Member States
which have extensive strategic planning prima-
fit this model (in Sweden the function is per-
formed by the county administrative board). I
rily undertaken by and for the regional level. The UK is also listed here because although in
Austria and Germany for example, address
strategic spatial planning policy both at the
the UK regional policy is published by central
government, local government plays the main
role in its production.
I
level of large regions and at another sub-
regional level and have• a federal system of
government. In a number of countries, for The nature of strategic spatial planning in the I
example, France, Ireland, Italy and Spain, Member States is closely related to their struc-
there is provision for regional strategic instru-
ments, but they are either not widely used or
are still in preparation. Sometimes there is
ture of government and size of population.
Table 8.5 illustrates the types of strategic
planning instruments used.
I
I
58 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I Table B.5: Types and use of strategic planning instruments

I General Purpose
General strategic
instrument
Sets out policy for the
Second level of general
strategic instrument
Provides a lower tier
Sectoral strategic
instruments
Set out strategic policy
City region plans

Set out strategic policy

administrative area or of strategic policy for part for a sector, such as for a functional planning

I Belgique-Belgie
functional planning area

* B, F (I), W (*)
of the area

* F(2) W(2) *
transport region based around
an urban centre

I Danmark
Deutsch land
Elias
*
*
(*)
*
*
*
* *

I Espana
France
Ireland-Eire
(*)
*
(*)
(*)
*
*
* * (3)

I Italia
Luxembourg
Nederland
*
*
*
(*)
*
*
*
*
(*)
(*)

I Osterreich
Portugal
Suomi-Finland
*
*
*
*
*
*

I Sverige
United Kingdom
*(4)
*
*
*
* *

* Indicates where such instruments are used.

I (*)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Indicates the provision of such instruments in law but not widely used or are in preparation.
In preparation, but no legal basis.
Is more than a strategic spatial plan.
Schemas directeurs for groups of communes with common perspectives.
(4) Not established in law.

I All Member States have a tier of strategic grammes of the Community Support Frame-
regional plan, but seven have a second tier of works. In Ireland, regional reports are being
I 'sub-regional'strategic spatial planning policy.
The countries with two tiers tend to have large
prepared which will deal with the provision and
coordination of public services and some re-
populations and/or a federal system of govern- gional authorities are initiating work on strate-
I ment. For example, in Germany the larger
Lander have a two tier system with the Land
gic plans. In Greece, none of the regional
development plans have been produced, ex-
producing a state-wide strategic plan known cept as operational programmes of the com-

I as the Landesentwick/ungsp/anor Landesent-

wicklungsprogramm and a sub-regional plan,
known as a Regionalplan prepared by the
munity support frameworks. In Italy, most of
the 20 Regioni now have approved regional
plans, but in Spain, few strategic planning

I Regierungsbezirke (district administrations)

the Landkreise (counties) or regional planning
associations at local authorities.
instruments have been prepared, as yet.

In a number of countries, policy instruments

I Some countries have extensive cover of stra-

tegic planning policy whilst in others there may
expressing strategic planning objectives for
large regions are also linked to programmes of
implementation or specific but broad zones of

I be only partial cover. Limited coverage may

arise because the provision for such instru-
ments is optional and only used in certain
land uses at the same scale. In some cases,
implementation programming is expressed in
the same instrument, in other cases there are

I circumstances, or simply because the provi-

sions for strategic planning have not been fully
implemented, except as operational pro-
strong linkages between the general state-
ments and other strategic instruments which
establish programmes of action.

I
I Making and reviewing plans and policies 59

I
 I
Other strategic planning instruments which areas which may be covered. Figure B.2 illus-
I
focus on particular sectors of activity are com- trates the different forms that strategic instru-
monplace. For example, in Austria, sector
plans are prepared covering issues such as
ments can take in terms of the graphic pres-
entation of strategies. The illustrations show I
tourism or shopping centres. Plans regionaux, clearly how such instruments provide a broad
sectoral regional plans, in France consider the
provision of, for example, transport infrastruc-
direction for development without specifying
precise development locations, although the I
ture, education or training. In Italy, the Piano level of comprehensiveness and specificity
territoriale paesistico defines environmental
and landscape policy for all or part of the
regional territory. In Greece, the national gov-
varies considerably. Note that these and sub-
sequent illustrations give only an indication of
the forms of instruments and readers should
I
ernment has produced eidikes chorotaxikes
meletes, special regional spatial studies,
mostly in areas of ecological value which are
refer to the Member State volumes for further
details. I
under threat. Some of these instruments will be The instruments recorded here are the statu-
produced under law other than spatial plan-
ning, but have important spatial implications
tory instruments set out in the legislation. Other
informal instruments are used for special pur-
I
that will need to be considered at the subse- poses or in particular areas where the law does
quent levels of plan making. not provide for a particular sort of plan. These
informal instruments may be produced coop-
I
Some strategic policy instruments focus on the eratively amongst a number of municipalities.
'functional planning region', and more of this
kind are in preparation. In Greece, the formal Table B.7 shows who is responsible for prepar-
I
strategic regional plans have not been pre- ing strategic spatial policy instruments in the
pared, but 'city-region' plans for the· two main
metropolitan areas have been published. In
Member States. The table is ordered by popu-
lation size of the areas that are covered by
I
the Netherlands too, it is now possible to strategic spatial policy instruments. Where
prepare strategic guidance in the form of
second tier structuurplans for city-regions
through collaboration between municipalities.
there is more than one tier of strategic policy
the figure relates to the highest. In most cases I
this is termed the region, although in the
The Italian local government system has also
been reorganised to allow for the considera-
tion of issues across the whole of important
Netherlands the highest tier of strategic plan-
ning after the Member State is the provincie,
and in Denmark and Sweden it is the county
I
metropolitan areas, the citta metropolitane.

Some Member States identify and designate

administrative board. Member States with
large total populations tend to be at the top of
the list as they also have the largest 'regions',
I
broad zones of land use across their territories by population.
at the regional or even national scale which
establish ground rules for regulation. These This review of strategic planning instruments
I
include coastal zones where development is illustrates their widespread use, although in
more strictly controlled, for example in Portu-
gal, or zones of broad land uses, such as
varying forms. All Member States have recog-
nised the need for a strategic planning instru-
I
urban and rural zones as in Denmark. Belgium ment and in most cases they have actually
is an exception in that detailed land use zoning
plans, the Gewestplan (Flanders) and Plan de
been prepared. The structure of government
administration and the size of the country play
I
Secteur (Walloon) are prepared for large parts an important part in determining the form and
of the region and are not strategic in nature or
purpose, even though they cover sub-regional
or large areas.
function of strategic instruments. As might be
expected, the use of a strategic tier is most I
evident in the federal and regionalised states,

Table B.6 lists the main strategic planning

instruments in the Member States and the
where regional government plays the primary
role in its production. What is less clear from
this brief review is the relationship between
I
I
60 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I Table 8.6: The main strategic planning instruments

I Member State

Belgique-Belgie
Main strategic/regional instrument

Plan de DeveloppementRegional/Gewestelijk Brussels region

Ontwikkelingsplan
Total number of areas which may be covered

I RuimtelijkStructuurplanVlaanderen(1) Flemish region

Plan Regional d'Amenagement du Territoire Walloon region

(2) (3)

I Danmark

Deutschland
Regionplaner

Landesentwicklungsplaneand/or l..andesent- 13 Area -

14 County councils

Lander
wicklungsprogramme
I Regionalplane/Gebietsentwicklungs-plane/
Raumordnungsplane
32 Regierungsbezirke

I Elias ChorotaxikoSchedio

RythmistikoSchedio
13 Regions

Athens and Thessaloniki

I Espana Planesdirectores territorialesde coordinaci6n

(or its equivalent in Regional Laws)
17 Regions (or part)

France Plan de la region 25 Regions (including overseas) and Corsica

I Contratde plan £tat-region

Schema directeur de la region lie de France

I Schema d'amenagement Corsica

Ireland-Eire Regionalreports 8 Regions

I Italia Piano territorialedi coordinamento and Piano

Territoria/ePaesistico
20 Regions (or part)
5 Regioni autonomi

I Luxembourg Plan d'amenagementglobal

Plan d'amenagementpartiel
Parts of the country

Parts of the country

I Nederland Streekplan

Structuurplan(4) 7
12 Provinces (or part)

'City-regions' (1)

I 6sterreich Landesraumordnungsprogramm

RegionaleRaumordnungsprogramme
9 Lander

One or more districts

I Portugal

Suomi-Finland
Plano Regional de Ordenamentodo Territ6rio 5
(PROT)

Seutukaava
Whole or part regions, Azores and Madeira

19 Regional councils and Aland

Seutusuunnitelma
I Sverige Uins strategy 24 County administrative boards

United Kingdom Regionaland strategic guidance 11 Regions

I Structureplans and unitarydevelopmentplans

part one
56 Counties in England, Scotland and Wales

(1) In preparation, but no legal basis yet.

I (2)
(3)
(4)
In preparation.
The Gewestplan/Plande Secteur rN) which cover large parts of the region are detailed zoning plans and are not strategic (see 8.10).
This is being prepared for city wide regions but is also used for municipal areas.

I
I Making and reviewing plans and policies 61
 I
Table 8.7: Level of government responsible for strategic planning instruments
I
Member State Average Population
of highest level
strategic planning
unit/region 000s
Average size
of strategic planning
unit/region 000km 2
Level of government responsible
for preparation and approval (highest)
I
United Kingdom 5,219 22.2 Cooperative work of local authorities
through conferences to prepare, and publi-
cation by national government
I
Deutschland
Belgique-Belgie
Italia
5,048
3,356 (1)
2,878
22.3
10.2 (1)
15.1
Regional government: Lander
Regional government (wide variation)
Regional government: Regioni
I
France (Metropolitans)

Espana
2,559

2,290
24.7

29.7
ConseilRegionaland Pretetde Region (con-
trat de plan)
Regional government: Autonomous com-
I
munities
Portugal 2,067 18.4 National government through regional coor-
dination commissions
I
Nederland 1,241 3.4 Provincial government: (2)
Osterreich
Elias
866
790
9.3
10.2
Regional government: Lander
National government Ministry of Environ-
I
ment: YPECHODE
Ireland-Eire
Sverige
440
364
8.6
18.8
(2) National government (3)
County administrative boards in coopera-
I
tion with county councils
Danmark
Suomi-Finland
350
265
3.0
17.8
County councils
Cooperative work of municipalit'1esthrough
regional councils: Approved by national
I
government Ministry of Environment
Luxembourg (4) 91 (0.65) National government Ministry of Territorial
(or Spatial) Planning:
I
(1) Average population is 4,559,000 and size 15,200 km2 excluding Brussels.
(2)
(3)
(4)
City regions produce strategic plans but are not an administrative tier of government.
Regional authorities perform a coordinating and advisory function.
The whole population of Luxembourg as a 'strategic planning unit is 379,000 with a size of 2,600 km 2 .
I
socio-economic policy and spatial policy in
strategic instruments, and also the extent to
Those Member States that have either an
established tier of regional government or re-
I
which the instruments play a part in more gional administration also have the largest
detailed programming of development and
public spending. These are important ques-
populations for strategic planning purposes.
Understandably, these are also the Member
I
tions which are worthy of further investigation.. States which have a two tier strategic spatial

In the federalised systems of Austria, Belgium,

planning framework. The exceptions to this are
the UK and Portugal. In the UK there is no tier
I
Germany and the regionalised system of of regional government, but it has the largest
Spain, the regional government has most re-
sponsibility for supra-local spatial planning,
regional planning units. Here central govern-
ment produces regional spatial policy after I
and it is not surprising to see the strategic receiving advice from cooperating groups of
spatial policy framework focused at the re-
gional level in these countries. Some other
local authorities. In Portugal, the Member State
government prepares regional spatial plans I
countries have an established tier of large through its regional coordination commis-
regions of a decentralised administration of
central government which is the focus for
strategic planning, as in Italy and France.
sions. Greece also has provision for central
government to prepare regional. plans, but
these have not yet been prepared.
I
I
62 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I Cooperative working between local authorities been delegated to municipalities. Another ex-
in preparing the regional instruments is impor- ception is Northern Ireland where the UK na-

I tant in some countries for example, Finland,

France and the UK.
tional government retains responsibility for
spatial planning (and most other government
functions).

I Local level instruments The following analysis illustrates the close tie
between the structure of local government and

I Instruments at the local level have been cat-

egorised according to whether they are gen-
spatial planning instruments, with, for exam-
ple, the area of coverage of many plans being
the same as the administrative area. The par-
eral frameworks for the development of one or
I more municipalities or more detailed plans to
guide regulation and implementation (see Ta-
ticular characteristics of local government in
each Member State have an important influ-
ence on the operation of the spatial planning
ble B.1). These are very broad categories, but
I nevertheless some planning instruments may
still perform both framework and detailed func-
system. The size of local authority units is
particularly important and Table B.8 gives a
summary of the approximate population of the
tions. However, the distinction is still consid-
average local authority unit for spatial planning
I ered useful in drawing attention to the different
roles that plans play.
purposes. This shows the extreme variation in
the size of the basic administrative unit for
detailed spatial planning. It does, however,
I Responsibilities for local level
mask the wide variation in size of units, for
example, over 50% of local authorities in Ger-
instruments many and Finland have populations of less
I The focus for the detailed regulation of land
use, change and building development across
t.han 1,000 and 6,000 respectively.

Municipalities are generally responsible for the

I the European Union is the local authority,
known variously as the municipality, com-
mune, Gemeinde, etc. In almost all Member
production of the main local level planning
instruments, and in most cases approval is
also delegated to this level. The exception to
I States the local authorities have the major
responsibility for the detailed management of
land use change and building control, under
this is Greece, where the local level plans have
been approved and in most cases even initi-
ated by the central government ministry. Re-
the general supervision of the national or re-
I gional government. In a few countries there
may be more than one tier of local authority,
cent changes to the government structure in
Greece (described above) mean that the lo-
with planning functions separated between cally elected prefecture is likely to take respon-

I them, as in much of the UK. sibility for these plans.

There are a number of important exceptions. In Framework and regulatory instruments gener-

I Greece, until very recently, central government

was responsible for plan making and regula-
ally have to be in conformity with planning
instruments prepared at higher tiers, and are
tion at all levels. A locally elected tier of prefec- usually adopted by the local authority that

I tures governing the area of a nomos (province)

was introduced in January 1995. However
prepared it. Sometimes the local level plans
have to be formally approved by another tier of
the administration. For example, in Italy they
local authorities in Greece still have no signifi-

I cant responsibilities in spatial planning. The

Pretecture/nomos is the lowest tier at which
planning powers are decentralised and so this
have to be approved by the Regioni, and in
Portugal to be ratified by central government.

I has been used as the basic unit for compara-

tive purposes in the tables that follow, although
in a few exceptional cases some powers have
The extent to which framework plans have
actually been prepared and adopted varies
significantly across the Member States. A sys-

I
I Making and reviewing plans and policies 63

I
 I
Table 8.8: Authorities responsible for framework and regulatory instruments (1)
I
Member State

France (Metropole)
Type of local authority

Communes
Number

36,558
Average population

1,550
I
Luxembourg Communes 118 3,300
6sterreich
Espana
Gemeinden
Municipalities
2,300
8,077
3,000
4,800
I
Deutschland Gemeinden 16,040 5,000
Italia
Suomi-Finland
Comuni
Kunnat/Kommuner
8,102
454
7,000
11,000
I
Belgique-Belgie Gemeente/Communes 589 17,000
Danmark
Nederland
Municipalities
Gemeentes
275
647
20,000
23,000
I
Sverige Kommuner 288 30,000
Portugal
Ireland-Eire(2)
Camaras
Districts
305
88
34,000
40,000
I
United Kingdom Districts 483 119,000
Elias (3) Prefecture 54 190,000
(1) Where there is more than one level of local authority (for example the UK) the table refers to the level with primary responsibility for local
I
level instruments. The average gives an indication only of the size of units responsible. •
(2) There is a significant range in Ireland with· 49 urban planning areas having an average population of only 9,100.
(3) Local government in Greece has very limited planning powers. The prefecture is the lowest tier to which plan making powers are
decentralised although in exceptional cases some powers have been delegated to municipalities.
I
tern of plans which is intended to cover large
areas does not necessarily ensure good cov-
States in the use of spatial planning policy
instruments at the local level as a basis for
I
erage overall. For example, in the UK there regulating land use and building/development.
was about 30% coverage of local plans in
England at the beginning of 1994, although
In all Member States legislation provides for a
tier of planning instruments at the local gov-
I
many more were in various stages of prepara- ernment level whi_ch is intended to be the
tion. Local regulatory plans are usually re-
quired to be prepared only where they are
principal tool for managing land use change.
I
needed, that is in the locations undergoing All Member States have more than one type of
development and land use change, or in some
cases where statutory protection for vulnerable
areas .is required. In some cases, the adoption
plan at the local government level. The first
generally covers the whole of one or a number
of municipalities and provides a broad frame-
I
of a detailed plan is obligatory before develop-
ment can proceed. (The relationship between
plans and decision making is addressed in
work for land use change. The second tier
provides for detail~d regulation and/or imple-
mentation of policy. Also it is commonplace for
I
Section C). For example, in Finland the there to be a number of other instruments
yleiskaava, a comprehensive or partial frame-
work plan, has been prepared in 97% of
which are prepared for special purposes, such
as the implementation of urban renewal
I
municipalities. The binding asemakaava and schemes, or the development of new urban
rakennuskaava have been prepared by 98% of
municipalities but cover only 3% of the total
areas. The variety of local level instruments is
greatest for Greece, Italy and Spain. Variations
I
area of the country. France has about 15,000 are also generated where the regional govern-
plan d'occupation des sols which cover some
50% of the territory of the country and 80% of
ments are able to establish their own laws
which determine the characteristics of plan-
I
the population. ning instruments.

Given the variation in administrative structures, Tables 8.8, 8.9 and 8.10 record the main local I
there is some consistency amongst Member level instruments and who is primarily responsi-

I
64 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I ble for preparing them for each of the Member more detailed statutory instruments. The pur-
States. The tables show only the main instru- pose of these framework instruments is vari-

I ments set out in legislation. They do not include

the non-statutory planning strategies and docu-
ments which are sometimes produced. Nor do
ously described as:

• providing long term development goals, ob-

I they include other instruments of regulation

which may have important implications for land
use, such as land-subdivision instruments, for
jectives or principles;

• identifying the future settlement pattern, in-

I example Sweden's tastighetsp/aner; or infra-

structure provision mechanisms, for example
Spain's proyectos de urbanizaci6n.
cluding the general areas to be developed
or given special protection;

I It is important to note also that in most coun-

tries there are general ordinances or regula-
• providing a framework for detailed local
planning and regulation;
tions which apply across regions or the whole
I state and which are particularly important in
those situations where building is formally con-
• determining the general siting of major infra-
structure;
trolled by binding plans but where they have
I not yet been prepared. In Spain for example, in
some provinces the Normas Complementarias
• providing a link between the general struc-
ture in national and strategic/regional guid-
ance and the binding provisions of more
y Subsidiarias establish general principles for

I controlling development and building over and

above plans and are particularly important in
the small municipalities where plans have not
detailed zoning and implementation plans.

Table B.9: Framework instruments

I been prepared. In Greece, special regulations

apply to all areas not included in a statutory
local plan. General orders, standards, and Member State
(local level)

Framework instrument
Belgique-Belgie Gemeentelijk ontwikkelingsplan/Plan

I other rules which apply across a country or

region and which have an important role,
especially where no detailed plans are pre-
communal de developpement (B)
Algemeen plan van aanleg (F)
Schema de structure communal 0N)
pared, are considered in Section C.
I Danmark
Deutschland
Elias
Kommuneplaner
Flachennutzungsplan (F-Plan)
Geniko poleodomiko schedio (GPS)
Framework instruments (local level)
I Table B.9 shows the plans in each Member
Espana Plan general. Normas complementa-
rias y subsidiarias/Proyectos de de-
limitaci6n de suelo urbano
France Schema directeur and directive terri-
State that are described as local level frame-
I work instruments. These instruments provide
general frameworks for guiding land use
Ireland-Eire
Italia
toriale d'amenagement (DTA) (2)
Development plan
Piano regolatore generale
change and an outline for the preparation of
I lower tier plans. They may include an element
of general zoning of land according to its
Luxembourg
Nederland
Osterreich
Projet d'amenagement general
Structuurplan
Ra.umfiches Entwicklungskonzept
current or intended use, but generally they do
(REK) (1)
I not determine the precise use of land in ad-
vance of more detailed plans or decisions on
Portugal
Suomi-Finland
Plano director municipal (PDM)
Yleiskaava/Generalplan
regulation. However they may allocate devel-

I opment rights in the same way that more

detailed plans do.
Sverige
United Kingdom
6versiktsplan (OP)
Local plan and unitary development
plan (UDP)part two
(1) For five Lander.

I All Member States use framework instruments

at the local level for general guidance, as
shown in Table B.9, although not all use further
(2) The DTA is introduced by the new Act on Planning and
Development (1995) and is issued by a Government decree
but is of broader local scope.

I
I Making and reviewing plans and policies 65

I
 I
It is important to note that these plans are where framework instruments may be pre-
I
based at the level of the local authority unit, the pared for part of the municipality. In Greece,
municipality. However, there may be some
overlap in function with planning instruments at
simplified plans are prepared for small settle-
ments. Framework plans may also take on the
I
a level below the region and covering part of role of 'detailed instruments' in their absence,
the region, that is, the sub-regional plans
identified earlier. Certainly, where sub-regtonal
such as granting of rights.
I
planning documents exist they will also be
providing general development frameworks for
major settlements or areas. Also there may be
overlaps with the detailed planning instru-
Regulatory instruments
I
All the Member States except the UK and the
ments, with the same type of plan serving
different purposes in different locations, for
example as with the Structuurplan in the Neth-
Republic of Ireland use detailed binding plan-
ning instruments which play a determining role
in the regulation of development. In many coun-
I
erlands, which can occur at the municipal level
and for city-regions.
tries there are a number of levels or forms of
such instruments. The area covered by regula-
tory instruments varies and this is illustrated in
I
The common characteristics of framework Table B.10. In some cases there is one regula-
plans are that they: tory instrument prepared for the whole of the
area of the municipality, although in France,
I
• are mostly the responsibility of the local Luxembourg and Spain it is possible for one
municipality (although often prepared on
their behalf by consultants);
plan to cover the area of a number of local
authorities. These countries have small local
I
authority populations. In the United Kingdom
• cover at least the whole of the area of the
local authority, and more than one where the
there is one instrument, the simplified planning
zone, that has the function of directly regulating
I
units are small, or where functional planning development, but it has been rarely used.
units are constructed;
The typical regulatory plan I
• set out the broad land use and infrastructure
patterns across the area through zoning or
land allocation maps;
• covers the whole or part of the local authori-
ty's area; I
• are generally of no fixed duration and can
only be replaced by new plans, although
there is often a requirement that they be
• indicates detailed site specific zonings for
building, land use and infrastructure; I
reviewed about every five to ten years;

• are mostly legally binding documents once

• has the effect of granting the right to build on
or change the use of land, subject to confir-
mation through permit procedures or the
I
approved, though a minority are not binding preparation of more detailed implementa-
but indicative guidance for lower tier plans
or for decisions on individual proposals.
tion plans. I
Three broad categories of regulatory instru-
Examples of the maps that accompany frame-
work type instruments are given in Figure 83
ments can be identified according to their
function as shown in Table B.11. Some regu-
I
latory instruments may be included in more
Variations to these general characteristics in-
clude France where there are very small local
than one category. Examples of each type are
shown in Figure 84. The first and the most
I
authority units - communes - and frame- widely used are regulatory zoning instru-
work instruments tend to be prepared for a
number of them together; and Finland where
ments. Such plans, like the Belgian bijzonder
plan van aanleg or the French 'plan I
local authority areas are much larger, and d'occupation des sols' (POS), prescribe land

I
66 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I Table B.10: Regulatory instruments

I Member State
more than one
municipality
Area covered by the instrument
the whole of one municipality part of the area of the municipality

I Belgique-Belgie Gemeentelijk Ontwikkelingsplan/Plan

Communal de Developpement (B)
Algemeen Plan van Aanleg (F)
Schema de structure communal 0N)
Bijzonder Bestemmingsplan/Plan Par-
ticu/ier d'affectation du sol (B)
Bijzonder Plan van Aanleg (F)
Plan . particulier d'amenagement/
schema directeur (W)
I Danmark
Deutsch land
Lokalplaner
Bebauungsplan (B-plan)

I Elias
Espana Plan General
Nomas Subsidiarias
Schedio poleos - Poleodomiki meleti
Programa de actuaci6n
(PAU)
urbanistica

Plan Especial Plan parcial (PP)

I France Plan d'occupation des sols

Plan especial (PE)
and others

Ireland-Eire Action area plans (1)

I Italia Piano Regolatore Generate Piano particolareggiato (PP)

Piano di lottizzazione (Pdl)
Piano di recupero (Pdre)

I Piano di edilizia economica e popolare

(PEEP)
Piano degli lnsediamenti produttivi (PIP}
Luxembourg Projet d'amenagement general Projet d'amenagement particulier

I Nederland
6sterreich
Bestemmingsplan (including Stadsvernieuwingsplan -urban renewal plan)
Flachenwidmungsplan
Land use plan
Bebauungsp/an
Building regulation plan

I Portugal Pianos de urbanizac;ao (PU)

Pianos de pormenor (PP)
Loteamentos • (land subdivision
schemes)

I Suomi-Finland Asemakaava (in towns and cities)

Rakennuskaava (in rural municipalities)
Rantakaava (in shore areas)
Sverige Oetaljplan (DP) (and others)

I United Kingdom
(1) May or may not be statutory.
Simplified planning zones (2)

(2) Although there is the capability to prepare simp/ifieq planning zones, they are rarely used.

I use and regulations for part or the whole of the distinguished from the general type. These pro-
municipality concerned. Other examples are vide specific information to would-be develop-
I the Dutch bestemmingsp/an, which like the
POS may cover part or almost all of a munici-
ers about precise building regulations. For ex-
ample, the Finnish asemakaava(in cities) raken-
pality, and the Portuguese Pianos de Urbaniza- nuskaava(in rural municipalities) provide details
I c;:ao (PU). The Greek schedio poleos is a
generic instrument which can be prepared in a
on the size and location of buildings. The Aus-
trian building regulation Bebauungsplan will
variety of forms, the main one being the po/eo- specify building lines at a scale of 1:2,000,

I domiki meleti epektasisianatheorisis.This, like

other instruments of this type, effectively deter-
mines the granting of development rights.
including building density details etc .. Other
plans also belong to this category because they
are more specific than the general zoning or

I A second category of even more specific and

detailed building control instruments can be
land use plans. Examples are parcelling plans
drawn in the Brussels Capital Region or the
Swedish Omradesbestammelser(OB).

I
I Making and reviewing plans and policies 67

I
 I
Table 8.11: Regulatory instruments: main purpose
I
Member State

Belgique-Belgie
RegulatoryZoning Instruments

Bijzonder Bestemmingsplan/Plan
Building Control Instruments ImplementationInstruments
I
Particulier d'affectation du sol (B)
Bijzonder plan van aanleg (F)
Plan particulier d'amenagement
(Y'J) • I
Danmark Lokalplaner
Deutschland
Elias
Bebauungsplan (B-Plan)
Schedio poleos
Zani oikistikou elenchou
Praxi etarmogis
I
Espana Plan general nomas compleme-
tarias proyectos de delimitaci6n de
suelo urbano
Programma de actuaci6n ur-
banistica
Plan parcial *
Plan especial * I
France Plan d'occupation des sols
Ireland-Eire
Italia
Action area plans
Piano regolatore generate Piano particolareggiato
I
Piano per /'edilizia economica
e popolare
Programmi integrati di inter-
vento
I
Programmi di recupero ur-

I
bano
Luxembourg Project d'amenagement communal
Nederland Bestemmingsplan
Osterreich
Portugal
Flachenwidmungsplan
Pianos de urbaniza9ao
Pianos de pormenor
Babauungsplan
Loteamentos(subdivision) I
Suomi-Finland Asemakaava (cities)

Sverige Detaljplan
Aakennuskaava (rural)
Aantakaava (shore)
Omradesbestammelser Fastighetsplan
I
United Kingdom Simplified planning zones
* Note: This table identifies the principal regulatoryinstrumentsonly and their main purpose. They may perform a variety of functions. I
The third category are implementation in-
struments. These are intended to do more
nomica e popolare (PEEP) is used to realise
areas of (low-cost) social housing; the pro-
I
than indicate the preferred allocations or legal grammi integrati di inteNento and the pro-
rights and are used to actually implement the
proposed development. Often this will be a
grammi di recupero urbano are both used for
urban regeneration. I
very specific type of development such as new
housing or industrial units. One instrument
which can be used in this way is the Danish
Over and above these three categories, regu-
latory plans may be used to meet a variety of
I
/okalplaner. Another set of examples are pro- objectives. They can, for example, be used to
vided by a series of Greek, Italian and Spanish
plans. The Greek praxi efarmogis is typical in
protect areas of land and the built heritage, as
in Spain. Furthermore, a particular instrument I
that it does not introduce new proposals but may be used to perform a combination of
applies policies of other plans to the actual
division of property ownership and apportions
tasks. The piano particolareggiato, for example
is a combination of regulatory zoning instru- I
charges used for public infrastructure, etc. The ment and implementation instrument.
Italian 'Piano Particolareggiato' (PP) is mainly
used in existing built-up areas and proposed The importance of regulatory instruments is I
expansion areas; the piano per l'edilizia eco- not to be under-estimated. In a majority of

I
68 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I cases, they will serve to implement the broad local standards. For example, in the Neth-
development objectives expressed in strategic erlands, the national government produces

I regional or municipal framework plans. There-

fore, the overwhelming majority are legally
binding. The principal exception to this is the
the bouwbes/uit (building decree) and the
municipality produces the bouwverordening
(building ordnance) which provides detailed

I UK where the local level instruments are not

detailed and are not legally binding. In other
countries, the legal force of the regulatory plan
regulations on a variety of complementary
matters, for example, visual appearance,
maximum height of buildings and parking

I may vary according to the particular proposal

or issue in hand.
standards.

Where such national or local standards exist

I The impact of these instruments on land use

change •depends on many factors including
the extent to which they predetermine deci-
any application for development should con-
form with them or it is likely to constitute a
departure. If an application is a departure from
sions on regulation through permit proce-
I dures, and the extent of the areas they cover.
There is a tendency to introduce new mecha-
the regulations the procedure for determina-
tion is normally the same as a departure from
a detailed plan. In addition, if there is no
nisms which allow decisions to be made con-
I trary to a binding plan, or which allow the plan
to be modified quickly to meet changing de-
approved detailed plan any approved general
standards are likely to be a major considera-
tion in determining applications for develop-
mands and this is discussed in more detail in
I Section C.
ment.

I General standards Consultation

I In · most Member States, the decision mak-

ing body and developers are obliged to
take into account a wide variety of detailed
The process of plan making inevitably entails a
considerable amount of consultation and ne-
gotiation between the plan making authority
I standards when determining or applying for
building permit applications. Such standards
may cover a broad array of issues, for
and others who have an interest in the plan.
This section is primarily concerned with the
example, aesthetics, height of buildings, plan making process at the local level. Some
I density, access, environmental quality and
health and safety. In many countries, there
of this activity is formalised in statutory proce-
dures that the plan making authority must
are detailed national building . codes or follow during preparation of the plan. Formal
I standards that must be adhered to, for
example Denmark, Finland, France, Greece,
procedural requirements for consultation help
to safeguard the interests of particular groups,
Ireland and the UK. Such national codes and contribute to ensuring accountability and

I often relate to detailed building regulations

and construction standards. In many Mem-
a measure of transparency in the process.
However, this may be at some cost in increas-
ber States, such standards may also be ing the complexity of the procedure and the

I produced at a regional and/or municipal

level, for example, Austria, Belgium, Finland,
time and resources needed to prepare plans.
The formal requirements for consultation in
each system, reflect in part the balance that
Germany and Sweden. This allows munici-

I palities to develop detailed standards that

respond to approved development plans
and local conditions. In a number of Mem-
has been struck between the rights of citizens
to participate directly in the process, and the
need for plan making authorities to ensure the

I ber States, there are national building regu-

lations and the municipality is required to
produce further elaboration in more deta'iled
plan framework is put into place in an effective
and efficient way, taking into account a wide
range of interests.

I
I 69
Making and reviewing plans and policies

I
 I
Consultation with other tiers of administration tern. This is the 'main planning instrument' at
I
and official agencies is an inevitable part of all the local level. The procedures indicated
plan making, although it often does not form
part of the formal stages of plan production set
here may not hold for other plans. The
emphasis is on the formal requirements set I
out in law.The country reports indicate that this out in law. The additional consultation and
is a routine activity in plan making in all Mem-
ber States. Which official organisations· are
participation exercises undertaken on an in-
formal basis are not considered here. Also, it I
consulted depends very much on the subject is important to note that the existence of
matter of the plan, and the range is potentially
enormous, especially in those systems where
the spatial planning system does not include
formal consultation requirements •does not
necessarily indicate the effectiveness of con-
sultation, in terms of either awareness of the
I
responsibility for other closely related policy
and regulation topics. Formal legal require-
ments for consultation sometimes apply where
public or their ability to shape the plan.

The table considers the opportunities for the

I
higher tier planning authorities are responsible
for supervising and approving the conformity
and consistency of local authority plan making.
public to be involved in the plan making proc-
ess through: I
Together with the courts they may also be
involved where challenges are made to plans.
• initial consultation of the plan making au-
thority's intention to produce a plan and
before proposals are confirmed;
I
Public involvement
• later consultation after publication of the
planning authority's firm proposals, for ex-
I
ample, in the form of a draft plan;
All planning systems also incorporate some
mechanisms for direct consultation with the
• attendance at formal hearings and inquiries;
I
public over and above the normal representa-
tive political processes. Whilst there is a fair
amount of consistency in the general commit-
ment to consultation with the public, there are
• other means such as representation through
formal consultative organisations;
I
also some interesting observations that can be
made. The method and depth of public con-
sultation required in the formal process varies
• challenging the plan after its formal adoption
by the planning authority or approval by
I
higher authority.
considerably, and there may be more exten-
sive informal consultation exercises under-
taken by particular authorities. Public consul- Table B.12 shows clearly that most provisions
I
tation is generally seen as a separate activity to for public involvement are at the stage of firm
consultations with official organisations and
usually comes later in the process.
proposals being made by the planning au-
thority when the public have an opportunity
I
to make representations and object. This is
Table B.12 illustrates the main provisions for
public consultation and involvement for the
almost always undertaken through the publi-
cation, advertisement and public display of a
I
main planning instrument at the local level in draft plan. The procedure includes a period
each of the Member States. The information
gives a general indication only since the
of time during which any person can lodge
objections to the draft plan. In many cases
I
precise timing and form of consultation will the time allowed is about a month, but it
depend very much on the specific proce-
dures for the type of plan in question, and
varies. In Greece the public have 15 days to
respond; in Sweden one type of plan, the OP I
these may vary considerably between differ- is subject to three months for representa-
ent types of instrument even within a Mem-
ber State. The table indicates the plan that
has been used for analysis from each sys-
tions. The procedure sometimes allows for a
further period of consultation should the first
stage result in major changes to the plan.
I
I
70 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I Table 8.12 Opportunities for public involvement in the main plan making process
at the local level

I Consultationand participation The use of hearings

and inquiries
Opportunity for chal-
lenge after the plan is
formally adopted/ap-
proved
Comments and other re-
lated mechanisms

I
Before proposals After publication of
are confirmed. planning authority's
firm proposals.
Osterreich Public must be in- Plan is made avail- In the case of environ-
Raumliches Entvvick- formed of intention able for public in- mental assessment

I lungskonzept Flach-
enwidmungsplan Be-
bauungspfan
to prepare plan and
possibility of con-
sultation.
spection and all citi-
zens have a right to
make statements
on the plan.
where citizens can
make statements in
the procedure and
groups of 200+ or
more may nominate a

I Belgique-Belgie Some plans are Consultation with On legal (including

representativeto take
part in the proceed-
ings.
Interest groups are
Plan communal de subject to 'pre-draft public on all draft procedural) represented in vari-

I development (B); (Al-

gemeen plan van aan-
leg (F): Schema de
structure communal
consultation with
public.
plans for 30 days -
citizens have a right
to file objections.
grounds (Conseil
d'Etat/Raad
State).
van
ous advisory commit-
tees at the reg·1onal
and municipal level
which may act as in-
0N) termediariesbetween

I
the plan authorities
and the public.
Danmark The public are in- Consultation for Challenge is possi- Lack of opportunity to
Kommuneplaner formed of the major eight weeks with the ble on legal or pro- appeal is argued be-
issues and are en- public, opportunity cedural grounds cause extensiveearly

I
couraged to submit to object. Further only. consultation is gener-
ideas and propos- consultation is un- ally thought ad-
als. The 'pre-con- dertaken if the plan equate.
sultation' stage is modified signifi-
must last a mini- cantly.
mum of eight

I Suomi-Finland
Asemakaava Raken-
nuskaava Yleiskaava
weeks.
Consultation on first
draft for three
weeks with right to
Further consulta-
tion and right to ob-
ject when plan goes
Hearings after con-
sultation on first
draft and second
Public can appeal
to state authorities
and if necessary to
Experimental
projects are under-
way to try to encour-
object. to council for ap- hearing after deci- the Korkein hal/into- age wider participa-

I proval. sion on plan by mu-

nicipal board.
oikeus (supreme
administrative
court).
tion amongst groups
who do not normally
participate in plan
making.

I
France ConsuItalian for Detailed plans are Those having an in-
Plan d'occupation one month on draft usually subject to a terest may appeal
des sols after approval by public inquiry. to the administra-
public bodies and tive court.
communes, with
opportunities to ob-

I Deutschland
Flachennutzungsplan
and Bebauungsplan
Public are informed
and may contribute
to setting aims for
ject.
Consultation
one month when
objections can be
for Public hearings are
held for major
projects such as
Those whose rights
are affected by the
plan can appeal to
Interest groups are
represented on advi-
sory boards which
plan. made, reduced to motorways. the courts. participate in the

I Elias
two weeks for plans
to meet 'urgent
housing need'.
Consultation for 15 Opportunity to chal-
preparation of re-
gional level plans.

Note plans are pre-

Pofeodomiki meleti days and opportu- lenge plans at the pared by central gov-

I nity to object. Council of State. ernment ministry who

consult the local au-
thorities.
Ireland-Eire Public may be in- Consultation of one Local property tax The Development

I
Development plan volved in prepare- month on revised payers may request Plan can be le9ally
•tion but this is not draft, with the op- a hearing of their challenged by Judi-
mandatory. Initial portunity to object. objection. cial review.
consultation for
three months on
first draft plan, when

I public may lodge

objections and rep-
resentations.

I
I
I Making and reviewing plans and policies 71

I
 I
Consultation and participation The use of hearings Opportunity for chal- Comments and other re-
I
and inquiries lenge after the plan is lated mechanisms
formally adopted/ap-

Before proposals
are confirmed.
After publication of
planning authority's
firm proposals.
proved
I
Italia
Piano regolatore gen-
erale
Consultation for 30
days when public
can object.
The consigli di quar-
tiere (elected neigh-
bourhood authori-
ties) are an important
I
avenue of consulta-

I
tion.
Luxembourg Informal discus- Consultation for 30 Observations can Local communal
Projet sions. days and opportu- be addressed to councils represent lo-
d'amenagement nity to object. central government cal interests in the
communal within three months plan process. Any
of the advertise-
ment of approved
plan.
physical or corporate
entity can represent
their own interest.
Public information
meetings are held.
I
Nederland
Bestemmingsplan
Public may be in-
formed but this is
not mandatory.
Consultation for
four weeks on draft
plan and opportu-
nity to object.
Objectors may re-
quest a hearing to
explain their objec-
tion in person to the
After the municipal-
ity has adopted the
plan it is submitted
to provincial execu-
At the time of sub-
mission to province
for approval, new ob-
jections may only be
I
municipality. tive and displayed made to changes.

I
for four weeks dur-
ing which limited
objections can be
made. After ap-
proval it is dis-
played for a further
four weeks when
appeals to the
Council of State are
possible on mat-
I
ters originally sub-

I
ject to objection.
Portugal Consultation for 30 No inquiries are The public have a
Plano director mu- days on draft plan, held. 'right of access' to
nicipal and opportunity to the process at any
object. stage of plan prepa-

Espana
Plan general
Public is involved
but not mandatory.
Consultation
one month, and
for Challenge is possi-
ble on procedural
ration, although this
is rarely exercised.
Consultation manda-
tory on EIA projects
I
Initial consultation opportunity to ob- grounds. at three stages in the
for 30 days on first
draft plan 'calling
for suggestions' for
changes.
ject. A second pe-
riod of consultation
is held if major
changes are made.
process. Public infor-
mation for main infra-
structure projects. I
$,verige Wide public con- Consultation for Challenge is possi-
Oversiktsplan, detalj-
plan
sultation on initial
proposals is the
norm.
three or 12 weeks
depending on type
of plan.
ble on procedural
grounds only. Chal-
lenge is possible
for the detaljplan.
I
United Kingdom Public may be in- Consultation for six An inquiry is held Challenge is possi- The inquiry is held
Local plan & Unitary
Development Plan
formed and con-
sulted prior to pro-
posals coming for-
ward. There is a
weeks on the plan
and opportunity to
object. A further pe-
riod of six weeks for
unless all objectors
agree that it is not
needed.
ble on procedural
grounds.
before an independ-
ent official but the fi-
nal decision rests
with the plan-making
I
mandatory public- objections if major authority.
ity and consultation-
stage usually
based on first draft
proposals.
changes are made
after the inquiry.
I
There are fewer formal requirements for con-
sultation before the plan making authority's
authority to undertake consultation before a
draft is prepared at their discretion. However,
I
this type of consultation tends to involve only
proposals are confirmed. Where this does
occur it is usually based on a first draft plan,
with a second further stage of consultation and
official organisations, although there may be
legal requirements to ensure consultation
I
opportunity to object following revision of the takes place. For example, special provisions
plan. A number of Member States report that
there is the opportunity for the plan making
apply in Italy where a hearing is used to
discuss the proposal with public officers,
I
I
72 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I agencies and organisations involved. In the Other procedures exist in some Member
UK there is a short list of official organisations States which give citizens special rights of

I which must be consulted in the earliest stages

of plan making, and a longer list of 'advisory
consultees'.
participation in particular planning decisions.
The requirement for environmental impact as-
sessment has been introduced in some Mem-

I Where objections are made to plans, a number

of Member States make use of some kind of
ber States with special provisions for public
consultation. In Austria the recently introduced
law on environmental impact assessment in-

I hearing, where objectors have a right to elabo-

rate their concerns. For example, in the UK an
inquiry is held before an independent inspec-
cludes provision for citizen participation in the
process. Individual citizens have the right to
contribute a written statement. Where 200 or
tor appointed by central government. who more citizens make a joint statement. they may
I records the evidence presented by objectors
and the plan making authorities, and prepares
elect a representative who can take part in the
proceedings as a formal party to the debate
a report for the local authority. The local au- along with the municipality affected by the
I thority retains the final decision although cen-
tral government may intervene and direct cer-
proposal, neighbouring municipalities and the
environment ombudsperson. In Spain there is
tain changes to the plan. This process has a special procedure when the change of use
I recently come in for close examination, given
that it demands considerable resources and
affects the 'green belt' which provides for more
public information.
may extend the time needed to adopt the plan.

I In the Netherlands, a provision has recently

been introduced which ensures that objectors Innovation in consultation
have a right to explain their objections in

I person to the plan making authority.

The right to challenge plans after adoption by

It is apparent that the consultation processes
are under examination in a number of Member
States where there are demands for both
a
I the plan making authority or approval by
higher authority is generally limited. The excep-
tions are France and Greece where there are
greater efficiency in the planning process and
,increasing transparency and public involve-
ment in the process. The effectiveness of

I extensive rights to challenge the plan through

both administrative and judicial processes. In
the Netherlands there is the right to appeal
public consultation exercises is also being
questioned. For example, Finland has an ex-
tensive system of consultation with the public.
after approval to the Council of State, but once There are two stages of consultation during the
this has been considered the plan becomes process and further rights to appeal against
law and no further appeals are possible. In the plan, but these have come under criticism,
other Member States where challenge is pos- and experimental plan making processes
sible it is confined in some way, either to state which open up the proceedings to a wider
organisations; to those whose rights are af- audience are much in evidence, including 'co-
fected by the plan (as in Germany); or to planning'. Experimental projects have been set
I questions about the operation of the proce-
dure (as in the UK).
up in Finland to try to engage those who would
not normally be involved in the planning proc-
ess, including people with disabilities and chil-

I The other principal method of public involve-

ment is through representative bodies. This is
dren.

feature of a number of systems. For example, Elsewhere there is concern that the consulta-

I in Belgium there is provision for consultation

through advisory committees which act as
intermediaries between the public and the plan
tion process is unnecessarily delaying plan
adoption, with well organised pressure groups
using every opportunity to prevent the plan

I making authorities, and in Germany, advisory

boards participate in the making of regional
plans.
going forward. For example, in the Nether-
lands the process has been amended to limit
the right of repeated objection on the same

I
73
I Making and reviewing plans and policies

I
 I
topic (although they still remain substantial) • formal cooperation
I
and to give central government more power to
intervene to enable particularly contentious
proposals to go ahead.
• common decision making
I
Cross-border spatial planning
Non-institutionalised cooperation
I
This type of approach reflects the most basic

Municipalities, regional authorities and Mem-

level of cooperation and is characterised by
exchange of information and plans and other I
ber States within the European Union have matters across borders (for example between
long recognised the necessity to cooperate
across borders in the sphere of spatial plan-
Finland and Sweden), usually as a first step
towards more extensive consultations and joint I
ning. Space is a continuum and administrative involvement in decision-making. Most coun-
boundaries are artificial in the context of the
increasing freedom of movement across them
tries appear to have this level of cooperation
and in some countries such as Germany and
the Netherlands, this type of approach has
I
and the impact of global economic and envi~
ronmental processes. So the need for cross-
border cooperation is obvious. In some cases,
been in operation since the 1950s. Over recent
years informal cross-border co-operation has
expanded both internally and externally. For
I
this involves the co-operation of neighbouring
example, during 1995, possibilities for coop-
municipalities in a cross-border area between
two or three Member States as in the Lille-
Kortrijk area. In others it extends across re-
eration have been explored between Greece
and Bulgaria, but these are only at the stage of
I
political discussion. At this level the emphasis
gions in two or more countries for example the
Euroregion, consisting of Kent, Nord-Pas-de-
Calais, Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels re-
is on informal cooperation and not joint deci-
sion making, but it may be precursor to more
I
gions. One of the oldest examples of cross- formal links.
. border cooperation is that of the Benelux coun-
tries which established a Custom Union in
I
1944 which eventually led to a first Benelux Formal cooperation
Structuurschets/Esquissede StructureBenelux
(Benelux Structure Outline Plan) in 1975 (ap- This approach to cross-border spatial planning I
proved in 1986). A second plan is currently is characterised by a formal system of joint
being prepared. The introduction of the Euro-
pean Union INTERREGinitiative has also en-
working groups or committees with consulta-
tions on draft plans and policies of the respec-
tive countries. Joint studies may also be set up
I
couraged a number of cooperative ap-
proaches to spatial planning. However, many
of the cross-border arrangements are informal
and/or advisory in nature and do not constitute
to explore and develop issues of mutual inter-
est. For example, local and regional authorities
in the UK, France and Belgium have estab-
I
lished a working group - the Strategic Plan-
part of the formal statutory systems of spatial
planning within Member States. ning and Infrastructure Group - to compare
the existing situation and the issues, problems
I
and changes taking place across the Eurore-
One of the case study topics in the thematic
• volumes of the Compendium describes cross-
border spatial planning in practice between
gion. Their report 'Towards a Policy Frame-
work... the First Steps' was published in 1994
I
and sets out the context, strengths and weak-
Member States.

Three types of approaches to cross border

nesses to be addressed as the first stage in
developing a longer term joint strategy. The
I
working group reports to the College of Mem-
spatial planning can be identified: bers which consists of five elected representa-
tives from each of the five regions of the I
• non-institutionalised cooperation Euroregion.

I
74 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I Another example is the Sarre-Lor-Lux-Trevesl Looking further afield to central and eastern
West Palatinate region where a working group Europe, Finland's eastern regional councils

I has been set up to investigate the planning

system and instruments in France, Luxem-
are cooperating with the Russian authorities to
open networks of road, rail and water links and
reach agreement to make a comprehensive
bourg and Germany and to undertake specific

I studies. A number of southern Danish counties

have also been involved in cooperation with
Land Schleswig-Holstein in Germany.
nature conservation plan for the Karelian Isth-
mus on the Russian side. In the Iberian Penin-
sula traditional cross border cooperation be-

I One of the older, more formalised instruments

dealing with cross-border spatial planning is
tween Spain and France, and Spain and Por-
tugal is being extended.

the German-Netherlands Deutsch-Nieder- A number of national, regional and local au-

I la.ndischen Raumordnungskommission which
is now discussing the preparation of a cross-
thorities may combine to realise a spatial
development perspective plan or vision for an
border regional plan. Recent French legislation area. The Netherlands/ Belgium/Germany bor-
I (1995 Act) allows foreign local authorities to
participate in French local semi-public compa-
der cooperation on the MHAL project is pre-
paring a spatial development perspective for
nies and to join with others in adjacent Mem- the cities of Maastricht/Heerlen; Hasselt/Genk;
I ber States to create public interest groupings
or corporate entities for joint actions, pro-
Aachen and Liege. The Scheidt Estuary was
the subject of a Common Development Con-
grammes and projects in public services and cept for the Maritime Region and contained a

I infrastructure. There has long been coopera-

tion between Denmark, Finland, Norway and
programme of strategic projects.

Sweden on public services and infrastructure. On a wider scale, the eleven countries around

I the Baltic (including non-EU countries) are

working on a concept for the spatial develop-
ment of the Baltic region which was initiated by
Common decision-making

I This third approach entails common decision

making based on joint working in which com-
the Swedish government in 1992. The Alpine
Convention, signed in 1991 by six countries
established a set of binding international rules
for the protection of the countryside and policy
I mon policies and guidelines are adopted. The
level of commitment by neighbouring authori-
ties separated by a common border to adopt-
aims on spatial planning, air quality, tourism,
agriculture, etc.
ing common policies will vary. Since there are
I no common planning instruments between
Member States, a common strategy will need
There is an increasingly wide range of cross-
border cooperation in the field of spatial plan-
to be incorporated into the statutory instru- ning from inter-regional cooperation between
I ments in each country. Member States to the production of a common
union for an area across several countries and
This type of cooperation may also be focused joint development plans and concrete
I on specific initiatives as well as more strategic
plans. For example, following an initiative by
projects. However, the absorption of many of
these joint instruments and arrangements into
local politicians, inter-regional cooperation be- the different legal planning systems and instru-

I tween Denmark and Sweden has resulted in

the proposed bridge across the 0resund
ments of the countries involved also requires
some form of political commitment and legal/
where associated works are under construc- administrative adjustments. At present, the

I tion. The French/Flanders intermunicipal coop-

eration between Lille and Kortrijk and French/
Walloon inter-municipal cooperation between
many arrangements and guidelines are not
binding on the relevant authorities and were
not recognised widely in relation to formal

I Lille and Mouscron have led to a joint pro-

gramme of infrastructure links relating to the
High Speed Rail Link and express roads.
planning systems. However, there are indica-
tions that many planning authorities in neigh-
bouring countries are taking positive steps

I
75
I
Making and reviewing plans and policies

I
 I
towards ensuring a basis for a common ap- Ministry for Planning and TerritorialAdministra-
I
proach to spatial planning for cross-border tion (MPAT) and is responsible for co-ordinat-
areas. Such work is now being promoted
through INTERREG Ila and TERRA initiatives
ing a consultative council comprising 12 sec-
toral areas and representatives of the munici- I
which are specifically intended to promote palities. In France, the Comite fnterministeriel
cross-broder co-operation on spatial planning. de /'Amenagement du Territoire (CIAT)and the
a
Comite fnterministeriel fa Ville et au deve/op- I
pement Social Urbain (CIV) provide high level
Sectoral integration coordination. Elsewhere coordinating instru-
ments may exist, but they are often not current,
for example, in Greece there is scope to
I
The level of integration between policy sectors
and different tiers of administration varies
enormously between Member States. It is im-
produce a five-year national development pro-
gramme which should produce a coordinated
approach at the national scale. However, the
I
portant to emphasise that at this stage com~
last programme ran between 1983-87 and has
ments are confined to describing those organi-
sations and instruments that exist in an at-
tempt to achieve horizontal (i.e. between sec-
not yet been updated, having been effectively
replaced by the procedures incorporated in
I
tors) and vertical (i.e. between administrative the preparation of community support frame-
spatial planning tiers) integration and do not
attempt to evaluate the effectiveness or other-
works. I
wise of such approaches. At the regional level many states have organi-

At the national level several countries have

sations and mechanisms which try to coordi-
nate development both horizontally across
I
formed ministerial and administrative struc- sectors and vertically between tiers. Often, as
tures to support sectoral integration. It appears
that those countries that produce up to date
for example in France with the Regional Pre-
fect, Portugal with the Regional Coordination
I
national plans or have an explicit spatial policy Committee (CCR), Greece with the Regional
framework possess the highest capacity for
spatial coordination of sectoral policies. One
General Secretary, this .involves a decentral-
ised arm of central government sectoral min- I
of the main reasons for this is that such istries. It is at this second tier that organisa-
documents usually provide an integrated de-
velopment perspective for a country, which
tions and agencies have recently been estab-
lished to try and improve sectoral integration
and coordinate spatial planning. This is also
I
has formally been approved and often incor-
porates state investment priorities in infrastruc-
ture (see national plans and frameworks). The
Dutch provide a good example of this ap-
true in Ireland with the establishment of eight
regional authorities (which comprise elected
representatives of the constituent local authori-
I
ties), and in the UK with the establishment of
proach. The Rijksplanologische Commissie
(National Spatial Planning Committee) con-
sists of high level representatives of the vari-
integrated regional offices of national govern-
ment departments. Both are decentralised
I
ous sectoral ministries who coordinate actions arms of central government.
and activities of different departments insofar
as these affect spatial development, and is A key feature of attempts to coordinate activity
I
responsible for preparing reports on spatial is the role that strategic plans have in shaping
planning for the whole country. The most re-
cent and comprehensive report (Fourth Report
the activities of lower tier authorities and or-
ganisations. The PROT in Portugal provides an
I
on Spatial Planning - Extra) contains policies example of this approach. Also this level usu-
for the location of large scale development and
for rural areas. Elsewhere too, national govern-
ally contributes to the authorisation and appro-
priate funding for infrastructure investment at I
ment committees are intended to produce the local level and hence implicit coordination
coordinated action. In Portugal the Directorate
General for Physical Planning and Urban De-
of sectoral development programmes. At this
stage it is important to acknowledge that in- I
velopment (DGOT) is a department of the creasing attention to horizontal and vertical

I
76 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I coordination of policy is evident in some coun- ture and other development identified in frame-
tries, which may be partly a response to Euro- work or detailed plans will be provided from

I pean Union actions. For example, in Greece

and Austria, the European Union influence in
regional or central government, again implying
some integration of policies and objectives.
shaping integration activity has been explicitly Finally, many local authorities are extremely

I identified in the Member State reports. How-

ever, it is too early to speculate on the signifi-
cance and effectiveness of such trends.
small and act cooperatively to provide expen-
sive services. This implies a degree of coop-
eration and an example includes the joint

I At the local level, the mechanisms for integra-

tion and coordination appear to be less formal-
municipal authorities of Finland.

The majority of Member States are, therefore,

ised although frequently the detailed plans are integrating policy sectors using a variety of
I only reliable if there is sufficient coordination
both horizontally and vertically. There is a
different mechanisms at different levels of gov-
ernment with varying degrees of effectiveness.
requirement that the plans need to be in There appears to be an attempt to improve the
I conformity with higher ranking plans and nor-
mally need to be approved by a higher admin-
level of integration with the community support
frameworks acting as one of the important
istrative tier. Very often funding for infrastruc- factors promoting this change.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Making and reviewing plans and policies 77
 I
Figure B1: National Spatial Perspectives
I
I
Denmark: The Danish Landsp.lan Perspektiv
I
The Netherlands: The Dutch Vierde Nota Over de Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra

Luxembourg: Programme Directeur d'Amenagement du Territoire (POAT) I

I
I
I
I
Figure B2: Strategic Planning Instruments
I
United Kingdom: Wiltshire Structure Plan Key Diagram (Deposit Draft)
I
Sweden: Lans Strategy for the Stockholm region I
Austria:

Portugal:
The Landesraumordnungsprogram for Lower Austria

Plano Regional de Ordenamento do Territ6rio do Algarve

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
78 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I Figure B3: Framework Instruments

I
I Greece: Geniko Poleodomiko Schedio, Kozani

Ireland: Development Plan, Dublin

I Italy: Plano Regolatore Generale, Turin

I Denmark: Kommuneplan Odense

Germany: Flachennutzungsplan, Berlin

I Finland: Yleiskaava Helsinki & Vanlaa

I France: Schema Directeur

Spain: Plan General (PGOU), Valencia

I
I
I
Figure B4: Regulatory Instruments
I
I France: Plan d'Occupation des Sols de la Ville de Charleville-Mezieres (POS)

I Belgium: Plan Particulier d'Amenagement a Court-Saint-Etienne (PPA)

The Netherlands: Bestemmingsplan Stadscentrum Omgeving Kronenburgerpark
I
I
I The illustrations at the end of this study give a general impression of the variety of forms
of the graphical representation used. They also help to elaborate on points made in the

I Compendium text:

I
I Making and reviewing plans and policies 79

I
I
I
I
I
I
I C Regulationsand permits
I Introduction has to be obtained. A separate consent is
needed for building control regulations in
I This section looks at how development is
controlled through regulations and permits re-
these countries.

Although all countries define their scope of

I lating to building and land use. The approach
adopted was to focus on the main permit and
to explain variations introduced by other per-
control, most amplify the details of what is
controlled through regulations or binding plans
mits in less detail. The processes of submitting at one or more levels of government. However,
I and determining the main permit and making
appeals are also described. The country vol-
there is some similarity in what is subject to
control, that is, building construction, changes
umes give more detailed explanations of the of use, sub-division of land and/or buildings

I variety of permits and related procedures. and demolition. In all countries there are some
general exceptions from planning control.
These tend to be for agriculture and forestry

I Main permit
and also minor building works such as small
extensions, although in Spain and Italy control
can be exercised over very detailed matters
and only some interior work is excluded.
I There is a high degree of similarity in the way
that Member States regulate building and land
use change through a system of permits. All In all Member States environmental considera-
countries have a system that regulates build-
I ing construction and land use change with a
form of permit that is normally obtained from
tions are becoming an increasingly important
element of building permits. As a result of
Directive 85/337/EEC, Member States are
the municipal authority. With the exception of obliged to consider the environmental impact
I the UK and Ireland, all countries have at least
one main permit usually called a 'building
of certain development projects. The detailed
implementation of the EIA Directive is a matter
permit' •(see Table C.1), which is a single for individual Member States, but it is antici-
I combined system of planning and building
control, and which regulates land-use change,
pated that any assessment should be avail-
able for public scrutiny and comment. Any EIA
building construction and in some cases, and public comment received as a result of

I demolition. In many countries, however, other

specific permits will also be required before
any building activity or occupation can take
that study should be a consideration in deter-
mining applications for building permits 1 .

I place. In the UK and Ireland there is a fixed

definition of development which is the basis of
control and for which 'planning permission'
1
For further information on the Implementation of Directive 85/337/
EEC see CEC (1993) The Implementation of Directive 85/337.

I
I Regulations and permits 81

I
 I
Table C.1: Main permit
I
Member State Name of main permit What does the main permit cover? Development exempt from planning
and building regulation I
Belgique-Belgie Permis de batir/Bouw,er- Construction, building regulation, Minor building works
gunning (W/F); permis
d'urbanisme/stedebou-
Wvergunning
change of use, demolition and
deforestation.
I
Danmark Byggetilladelse Construction, building regulation, Minor building works

Deutschland Baugenehmigung
change of use, and demolition.
Construction, building regulation,
change of use and demolition.
Agriculture and forestry
Minor building works and minor
structures for agriculture and for-
I
estry
Elias Oikodomiki adeia Construction, building regulation,
change of use, sub-division.
Minor building works
I
Espana Ucencia de edificacion Construction, building regulation Only a few minor works.

France Permis de construire

and change of use.
Any construction, building regula-
tion and change of use.
Minor building works and minor
structures
I
Ireland-Eire Planning permission Construction, change of use, and Minor building works

Italia Concessione edilizia

demolition.
Construction, building regulation,
change of use and sub-division.
Agriculture and forestry
Interior work and others requiring
autorizzazioni only (Authorisation)
I
Luxembourg Permis de construire Construction, building regulation,
change of use, sub-division and
demolition.
Change of use/sub-division if no
building works I
Nederland BouWvergunning Construction, building regulation, Most minor building works

bsterreich Baubewi/ligung
change of use and sub-division.
Construction, building regulation,
change of use and demolition.
Minor building works I
Portugal Ucenciamento Municipal
de Obras Particulares
(includes different proce-
dures)
Construction, building regulation,
change of use and demolition.
Minor building works
Local or central Government
projects
I
Suomi-Finland Rakennuslupa Construction, building regulation,
change of use, sub-division and
demolition.
Minor building works.
Agriculture and forestry I
Sverige Bygglov Construction, building regulation Minor building works

United Kingdom Planning permission

and change of use.
Construction, change of use, and
demolition.
Agriculture and forestry
Minor building works
Agriculture and forestry
I
Note: This table identifies the main permit in each country and what it regulates. There will be others - sometimes many others (seeTable
C.2). To allow for comparisons broad definitions have been used for coverage and exemptions to the main permit. The table does not address
particular types of use such as advertisement control or mineral extraction. It is worth noting that in most countries regulation of
advertisements is included in the main permit.
I
Separate permits the UK and Ireland it is possible to apply for I
outline planning permission, to determine

There is a diverse array of other permits that

whether the development is acceptable in prin-
ciple and if permission is granted, it is subject I
relate to building and land-use change (see to the subsequent approval of a variety of
Table C.2). In some countries, for example,
Belgium, France, Germany, Portugal and
detailed matters, for example, siting, design,
means of access. In most countries, for exam- I
Spain, there is the opportunity to apply for a ple, France and Sweden, there are separate
preliminary permit to establish the conformity
of the broad development proposals to a plan
permits for demolition. Many countries require
sub-division permits to parcel up land for I
in advance of applying for a building permit. In development, for example, France, Ger-

I
82 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I Table C.2: Separate permits

I Member State Preliminary

application
Sub-division
of plots
Demolition
of buildings
Works on his-
toric buildings
and sites
Pollution/
environmental
control
other

Belgique-Belgie * * * *(1) * Advertisement

I Danmark * * *
Occupation permit
Rural zone permit
Deutschland * * * * Deforestation Permit

I for water extraction

and/or discharges into
water
Elias * * * Siting or location per-

I Espana * * * *
mil
Occupation permit
Activity permit
Change of use
I France * * * * *
Advertisements

Ireland-Eire * * Building regulations

I Italia
Luxembourg
*
*
*
*
*
* * 'Special' development
permits

I Nederland

Osterreich *
*

* *
*

*
Constructionpermit
Occupation permit
Deforestation Permit
for water extraction

I Portugal * * * * *
and/or discharges into
water
Activity permit

I Suomi-Finland
Sverige
*
*
*
*
* *
* Site improvement per-
mil
United Kingdom * * * * Building regulations
I (1) In Wallonia the main building permit covers historic building works.
Advertisements

I many and Portugal. A number of countries

require specific permits if development is to
application. Generally any individual or organi-
sation can apply for a building permit although
take place on or around historic buildings, for in some countries, for example, Spain and
I example, Austria, Greece, Italy and the UK. In
all countries there are a variety of environmen-
Belgium, the services of a registered architect
are required for most development. Applica-
tal permits which are often linked to specific tions for permits to build are normally made on
I aspects such as hazardous substances and
waste disposal.
standard forms and usually submitted to a
local level of government, for example, the
municipality. There is usually a fee attached to
I an application, although in some countries this
is only payable on approval.
Making and determining an·
I application {the main permit) The majority of permits are determined at the
local level in broadly similar ways (see Table

I There is a high degree of similarity between

Member States in the procedures for applying
for the main permit and determination of the
C.3). It is normally the responsibility of a group
of local politicians, for example, the council of
mayors and aldermen (Luxembourg), the mu-

I
I Regulationsand permits 83

I
 I
Table C.3: Determining the main permit
I
Member State

Belgique-Belgie
Public consultation

None except when a substan-

tial proposal or exception to
Link to policy instruments

The application must be in

Exceptions to the plan

Departures from the plan may be

I
compliance with binding plans allowed only when not in conflict

Danmark
plan (B).

None
and regulations.

The application must be in

compliance with binding plans
with the plan principles.

There is only very limited flexibil-

ity to vary from the plan.
I
and regulations.

Deutschland Consultation varies according

to regulations applicable in
The application must conform
with the B-plan.
Exemptions from the provisions
of a B-plan may be allowed in
I
each Land, but it is unusual to certain circumstances.

Elias
consult with the general public.

Consultation with various gov- Decision should not infringe For areas covered by town plans
I
ernment bodies. provisions of town plans. there is only limited flexibility to

Espana None, except for permits in The application must be in

vary from the plan.

Only for state public works in

I
non-developed land. compliance with binding plans case of exceptional public inter-

France Only for specific types of devel-

and regulations or the old plan
modified.

The application must conform

est.

There is only very limited flexibil-

I
opment. with the POS. ity to vary from the plan.

Ireland-Eire Any individual or organisation

can object.
The plan is binding. Flexibility to vary from the plan
through the material contraven-
I
tion process.

Italia None The application must be in

compliance with binding plans
Art. 81 - Presidential Decree
No. 616/1977 allows for some
I
and regulations. exceptions to the plan. •

Luxembourg Any individual or organisation

affected can object.
The application must be in
compliance with binding plans
No exceptions to the plan. I
and regulations.

Nederland Notification
Interested parties can object.
The application must be in
compliance with binding plans
and regulations.
Departures from the plan are al-
lowed in some circumstances.
I
6sterreich Adjoining properties and rel-
evant public agencies.
The application must be in
compliance with binding plans
and regulations.
There is only very limited fl_exibil-
ity to vary from the plan. I
Portugal None The application must be in
compliance with binding plans
and regulations.
Minor changes that do not con-
flict with the plans principles. I
Suomi-Finland Neighbours and certain sector
administrations.
The application must be in
compliance with binding plans
and regulations.
Can apply for an exceptions per-
mit to build without or regardless
of the plan.
I
Sverige Must consult with relevant bod-
ies affected by the application
if not in conformity with plan or
area regulations or if none ex-
Applications must conform
with any binding plan or regu-
lation. If there is no binding
plan, applications should be
There is only very limited flexibil-
ity to vary from a binding plan.
I
United Kingdom
ist.

Any individual or organisation

considered against higher tier
non-binding plans.

The plan is not binding but is Departures are allowed if other

I
can object. the primary consideration in material considerations justify
determining an application.
Each application is considered
on its merit.
this, but they are subject to a
special procedure. I
I
84 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I nicipal council (Denmark), acting on adminis- cally imply the right to build, for example,
trative or professional advice of paid officials. Ireland and the UK.

I In other Member States, such as Germany, the

decision is in theory, an administrative process In all Member States when applications are
and is made by officers. However, there are made for building permits a primary considera-

I numerous examples across the EU of special

cases when the decision becomes more diffi-
cult, involving a measure of judgement and
tion is the content of any relevant and statutory
approved plan. In determining applications,
lower tier plans tend to have a higher status in

I discretion, and becomes more political, as

explained in the following sections.
decision making than more strategic national
or regional plans. The high status of lower tier
plans is a result of their detailed nature and the
fact that they are normally required to be in
I Where a regulatory plan exists
conformity with higher tier plans before ap-
proval or adoption. However, it is not unusual
for applications to be made which are a de-
I Decisions on most permits are usually tested
against binding local land use plans and/or
parture from the existing lower tier plans or
where no formally approved detailed plan cov-
building regulations and this is normally a ers the building permit application site. Under
I technical and administrative process that is
ratified by a group of local politicians or a
either of these circumstances a variety of
approaches have been adopted by Member
senior administrator. The precise meaning of States. Whatever approach is adopted it is

I 'binding' will vary. In some cases it will mean

that if the proposals conform to the plan, a
generally the case that conformity with higher
tier plans and general standards is a major
permit must be granted - and the process is consideration in determination and conditions

I one of ratification that the proposal is in con-

formity with the plan only. In other cases, the
proposals must conform to the plan but the
applied.

I planning authority retains discretion to supple-

ment the grant of permit with additional condi-
tions. In this case the process is more than
Departures from the regulatory plan

In all Member States departures from plans are

I ratification. The scope for variation from a plan

is usually limited but see below under 'depar-
tures'. Examples of binding local land use
an important issue. A departure means where
the decision takes on a particular proposal is
not in accordance with the provisions of the
plans in this context are the Bestemmingsplan published plan, where one exists. There are
I (the Netherlands), the Bebauungsplan (Ger-
many) and the Plan d'Occupation des sols
four broad approaches to dealing with depar-
tures. First, in a number of countries if an
(France). Where the plan is not binding as in application is a departure from the plan then a
I the UK, each •application is considered ac-
cording to policy and other planning consid-
new plan must be produced, for example,
Luxembourg. Second, many countries allow
erations such as layout, design quality, access for some minor departures from the plan, but
I and car parking, although the plan is the
primary consideration in determining applica-
any major departure requires a new plan to be
prepared, for example, Denmark, France, Ger-
tions. This approach incorporates a greater many, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden.

I measure of flexibility in the formal arrange-

ments - such that departures can be agreed
Third, the plan can be modified to allow the
development to take place, for example, Neth-
within the formal system (although consistency erlands and Greece. Fourth, a number of

I with plans and previous decisions may still be

very important). The effect of this may be, of
course, less certainty for applicants for per-
countries have developed special procedures
for applications which are a departure from the
plan. In Ireland, procedures are in place to

I mits. In a number of countries an application

for development in accordance with the ap-
proved development plan does not automati-
allow departures to be made on a resolution
passed by no less than three quarters of the
elected representatives of the local authority. In

I
I Regulations and permits 85

I
 I
Finland, there are procedures that allow an In some countries, regulatory instruments may
I
applicant to apply for a special permit, the play an important role but the system may
poikkeuslupa (exceptional permit), where the
proposal is not in conformity with the plan. In
allow for other mechanisms for granting per-
mits where no detailed zoning instruments
I
the UK departures have to be advertised and exist. For example, in Belgium, if no plan
may have to be referred to central government
which has the power to intervene.
patticulier d'amenagement exists, permits can
be granted on any serviced plot located within I
wide building zones identified in the plans de
A number of countries use a mix of the ap-
proaches identified above depending on the
individual circumstances of each application
secteur, subject to the fonctionnaire -
delegue (a regional planning official) agreeing
to this action through a procedure known as
I
and whether it is a major or minor departure
from the plan. For example, in the Netherlands
where building works are contrary to the be-
avis conforme (binding advice). In some coun-
tries developers must apply for special per-
mits, for example, Finland, where it is possible
I
to apply for a Poikkeuslupa (exceptional per-
stemmingsplan departures can be accommo-
dated in one of four ways: making a new plan;
modifying the current plan; granting exemp-
mit) to build without a regulatory plan. In
Finland, this approach is also used when an
I
tions from the plan; or anticipating the making application is a departure from an approved
of a new plan in the decision. detailed plan (normally for small development
proposals), because it is a speedier process
I
The points made above may not apply when a than amending an existing plan. In other coun-
decision is being made following a challenge
to a normal decision. In these circumstances,
tries special procedures have been adopted
that allow for decisions to be made without an
I
decision makers, usually a higher authority, approved plan, for example Greece where
may not be bound by the plan. For example, in
Ireland the appeal boards are not formally
there are specified nationwide procedures for
out-of-plan areas. In Sweden, omradesbes- I
bound by the plan, when considering appeals. tammelser (area regulations) can be adopted
in areas not covered by a regulatory plan, to
ensure proposals in the oversiktsplan (munici-
pal comprehensive plan) and national policy
I
Where there is no regulatory plan

The significance of the lack of a detailed plan

when proposals come forward varies. First,
are followed.

In the UK, the development plan is the

I
primary consideration in making decisions,
there are countries where a local regulatory
binding plan must exist before development
can take place outside the already built up
but the system of controlling development
through the issue of planning permission has
I
always been able to operate without places
area. For example, this is the case in Germany
with the Bebauungsplan, the Netherlands with
the Bestemmingsplan and Italy (in all cases
being prepared. This is still formally the case,
although government policy is that local
I
with a few minor exceptions). Thus the regula- plans should be prepared and decisions
tory planning instrument is the principal means
of controlling urban development, and one
should be in accordance with them. Never-
theless, the development control process
I
must be prepared to allow development to proceeds in much the same way whether or
proceed - at least in theory. The relationship
between regulatory instruments and the grant-
not a local plan exists.
I
ing of permits becomes particularly compli-
cated where the system formally requires 'a
plan' to be in force before the permit can be
Time limits for determination
and objection I
granted, but where the system has not been
able to produce sufficient plans. Other prob-
lems arise where the system has been able to
keep plans up to date.
Many Member States fix a time limit for a
decision for determining permits, but in I
practice the time period is often extended

I
86 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I (see Table CA). The formal time limit is In some countries (noted in Table C.4), the
normally two to three months for most procedure allows for 'third party' objections

I countries, but it can be much shorter. In

Greece a decision is expected within 15
days. In Denmark, Finland and Sweden
(that is neither the applicant or the decision
making body) after the decision has been
made. This adds a further stage to the process

I there is no formal time limit for making the

decision. There are also differences in ap-
proach to the failure to determine applica-
between the decision and authorisation to
begin construction or other activity permitted
(see also Tables C.5 and C.6). This is normally
tions within the specified time period. In between two and eight weeks (see Table C.4).
I most countries, applications are deemed to
be refused if no decision is made within the
Such an approach reflects the general impor-
tance given to considering the views of those
specified time period, but in others it is affected by regulation decisions, but inevitably
I deemed to be approved, for example, Ire-
land, the Netherlands and Portugal.
adds to the duration of the decision making
process overall.

I Member State
Table C.4: Time limits attached to the main permit

Time formally allowed Delay for third Life of Permit

for decision party rights

I Belgique-Belgie 75 days(FM') - 135 (B) 30-60 days 1-2 years (FM')

2°3 years (B)

I
Danmark no time limit 1 year
Deutsch land 2-3 months 3 years
Elias 15 days 3 years

I Espana
France
specified by municipalities
2-5 months
1 month
2 months
Varies, set by developer in application.
2-3 years
Ireland-Eire 2 months 5 years

I Italia
Luxembourg
90 days
3 months
60 days 1 year
2-10 years
Nederland 12 weeks 6 weeks No time limit unless specified by munici-

I bsterreich 3 months
pal building regulations.
2-3 years
Portugal 30-50 days . Varies

I Suomi-Finland
Sverige
no time limit
no set time limit
3 years
2 years
United Kingdom 8-16 weeks 5 years

I A time limit on a building permit is imposed in Public consultation

I most countries during which construction must

take place. The life of a permit is normally
between one and three years. The Netherlands
All Member States inevitably engage in consul-
tation with other public agencies and major

I has no standard time limit but rather, it is

specified by individual municipalities. The UK
and Ireland have five-year limits. Time limits are
interests during the permit process. Most also
allow for wider public consultation where the
decision making process is opened up to citi-
used in most countries to restrict speculative
I holding of land and encourage implementa-
tion. In some countries applicants are sanc-
zens who wish to present their views. There are
two differing types of approaches to public
consultation on permit applications in Member
tioned by expropriation if development is not States (see Table C.3) which should be consid-
I started in the time period specified in the
approval, for example, Finland.
ered alongside opportunities for consultation
and objection that may have already been

I
Regulations and permits 87
I
I
 I
made available in the plan making process. In a financially penalise unauthorised develop-
I
number of countries, for example, Denmark, ment, for example, Austria, Belgium, Denmark,
Italy and Portugal, there is no public consulta-
tion on the premise that there has been a higher
Germany, Ireland and Sweden.
I
degree of consultation in the preparation of Despite the wide array of regulations and
binding plans, against which the permit is as-
sessed. In others, for example, Austria, Sweden
enforcement procedures in Member States
development still takes place outside of the I
and the UK there is a high degree of public planning system and this has been a feature in
consultation on individual permits particularly
with adjoining owners and users as well as with
relevant public agencies. Public consultation is
the past in Belgium, Greece, Portugal and
Spain. One reason for this is that often taking
action against unauthorised development is an
I
also normally undertaken in the procedure for
environmental assessment, where this is sepa-
rate from the planning permit.
extremely sensitive political issue. One re-
sponse to unauthorised development in Mem-
ber States where it is a major problem has
I
been to legalise all development after a period
of time, for example, Belgium, Greece and
Italy. The question of unauthorised develop-
I
Enforcement
ment is taken up in Section G.

All Member States have some procedure

I
which enables enforcement action to be taken
Appeals and challenges
against unauthorised building works and land
uses. The amount of unauthorised develop- to decisions I
ment varies greatly between Member States,
but tends to be a much greater problem in
southern European countries for example
There are three principal questions in consid-
ering the nature of appeals and challenges to
I
Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. planning decisions. Who is allowed to appeal?

The majority of enforcement action is taken at

the local level, mainly by the tier of government
To whom is the appeal made? And on what
grounds can an appeal be made? Appeals can I
be made in all countries by the original appli-
with responsibility for determining building ap-
plications. There is high degree of similarity
•between Member States in the procedures
cant and by third parties, although the rights of
third parties to appeal may be strictly limited. It
should also be remembered that there are
I
they adopt in dealing with unauthorised devel-
opment. If construction has taken place or
started without the required permit(s) or devi-
many examples of procedures where central
government (or in some countries the regional
government) has opportunities to intervene,
I
ates from any condition attached to an ap-
proved permit, the appropriate enforcement
authority has the power to suspend construc-
especially where the decisions amount to a
departure from plans. There are three broad
categories of body to which appeals can be
I
tion work. The construction can only then made - the decision making authority itself, a
resume if the appropriate permit(s) are ob-
tained and the proposal brought into accord
higher tier of government administration, and
the courts. There are two broad categories of
I
with the appropriate regulations/plans. In grounds on which appeals can be made -
some countries for example, Denmark, Ireland
and Sweden and the UK, a permit may be
substantive or technical grounds and legal or
procedural. The substantive policy appeal is
I
effectively granted retrospectively. the situation where the applicant (or some-

Most Member States have the power to order

times third party) disagrees with the substance •
of the decision made because they believe it to I
total or partial demolition of unauthorised de- be a poor decision or that it has not taken
velopment if it is incompatible with the plans
and regulations for that location. In a number
of Member States there is also a system to
policy properly into account. The legal and
procedural grounds do not relate to substan-
tive policy directly, but on the way the decision
I
I
88 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I has been made. Successful appeals and chal-
lenges of this type may have an indirect affect
individuals, whether applicants or not, to ap-
peal to the courts on the grounds that the

I if the decision is declared 'unlawful'. Tables

C.5 and C.6 set out the variation in appeals
and challenges allowed according to these
decision making body have not followed pro-
cedures correctly or have acted beyond the
powers that the law gives them. There is more

I categorisations.

The tables reveal a fairly complex picture, but

variation where an appeal to the substantive
decision is concerned. As in the case of public
consultation in permit decisions, the opportu-
there is also a considerable amount of com- nities for appeal need to be considered in the
I mon ground in the broad principles applied.
This is especially so in recognising the right of
light of the opportunities for involvement at the
time that plans are prepared.

I Member State
Table C.5: Applicants' rights to challenge decisions

To the Courts on le- To a higher tier au- To a higher tier To the determining To the determining

I Belgique-Belgie
gal and procedural
grounds

*
thority on substan-
tive policy/technical
grounds
*
authority on legal
and procedural
grounds
*
authority on sub-
stantive policy/
technical grounds
authority on legal and
procedural grounds

I Danmark
Deutschland
Elias
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

I Espana
France
Ireland-Eire
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

I Italia
Luxembourg
Nederland
*
* * *
* * *

I bsterreich
Portugal
*
*
* * *

Suomi-Finland * * *

I Sverige
United Kingdom
*
*
*
*

I A small number of Member States (Austria,

Netherlands and Germany) provide the oppor-
permit to be made on legal or procedural
grounds to a higher authority. In essence, the
tunity for a decision to be challenged by same issues, both •substantive or legal are
I reference to the original determining authority.
In essence, this provides the authority with an
open to challenge to a higher authority as well
as to the determining authority itself. The key
opportunity to review the decision that it has difference is the objectivity that a higher level

I taken and the basis for this decision. The

authority may change its decision, but if it does
authority can bring and the consequent need
to allow the determining authority as well as
not, the right exists for an appeal to a higher the applicant to make representations.

I authority or the case may be automatically

transferred to the next higher authority.
Betterment and compensation

I A larger number of Member States provide for

an appeal directly to a higher determining
authority, primarily on technical grounds, al- Capture of betterment
though a number of Member States, for exam-
I ple, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany and
Greece allow challenges to a decision on a
Betterment is the increase in value of land or
property arising from public (or community)

I
Regulationsand permits 89
I
I
 I
Table C.6: Third party rights to challenge decisions
I
Member State To the Courts on le-
gal and procedural
grounds
To a higher tier au-
thority on substan-
tive policy/technical
grounds
To a higher tier
authority on legal
and procedural
grounds
To the determining
authority on sub-
stantive policy/
technical grounds
To the determining
authority on legal and
procedural grounds
I
Belgique-Belgie
Danmark
*
* *
I
Deutsch land * * *
Elias
Espana
*
* *
*
I
France * * *
Ireland-Eire
Italia
*
*
*
I
Luxembourg *
Nederland
Osterreich
*
* * *
*
*
*
I
Portugal *
Suomi-Finland
Sverige
*
*
*
*
*
I
United Kingdom *

actions, including planning decisions to ap- brought into public ownership at existing
I
prove development or a change of use of the use value and a betterment levy is effectively
land or property. Since the increase in value is
created by the community it has been argued
charged through the selling price of the
serviced land.
I
by many governments that some or all of it
should be returned to the community. How-
ever, identifying the increase that is a result of
• A common approach is to recoup a propor-
tion of, or all the estimated betterment
I
public as opposed to private actions may be through a tax. The charge may be a tax
difficult. Also the question of increased values
is often interrelated in practice with charges to
based either on the increase in value of the
land or property or based on the necessary
I
secure the provision of related infrastructure. costs of providing infrastructure or facilities,
The complexity of the question of the better-
ment issue is reflected in the many different
as in France, Greece, Portugal and Sweden.
For example, in France the taxe locale
I
ways in which governments have sought to d'equipement is a local service tax based on
deal with it. Most governments use a combi-
nation of methods. The principal methods of
the value of the property and is about 1%,
but can be up to 5%. Developers may be I
recouping betterment are listed here and the exempt if the necessary infrastructure has
main approach in each Member State is
shown in Table C.7.
already been provided by the developer
and/or contractor. I
• Where government bodies acquire land at
the existing use value as part of the devel-
• Taxes may be levied to fund particular needs
other than 'infrastructure'. In France and I
opment process, the question of betterment Portugal taxes are used to fund the acquisi-
being returned to the community can be
dealt with automatically. The servicing of
tion and development of public space.
I
land may also be funded through surpluses • Taxes may be levied from developers in
generated when the land and/or property is
sold on. For example, in the Netherlands,
most development has been on land
situations where they have exceeded pre-
defined land/building ratios as stated in
legal building rights or an applicable local
I
I
90 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I plan, and which generally go towards public The arrangements for recouping betterment
infrastructure provision, for example, in are often very contentious. Municipalities will

I France and Italy. wish to ensure that all costs of new develop-
ment are passed on to the developer and may
• Developers may be required to hand over also require additional charges or taxes on

I land ownership of a proportion of the devel-

opment site as a contribution to public facili-
ties such as public open space, or social
development gains, which may be perceived
as unfair by developers. Several Member
States have sought to address this problem by

I housing, as happens in Austria, France,

Greece, Portugal and Spain. For example, in
Spain developers are obliged to give over
imposing limits on local authorities' powers to
impose costs on developers, for example, in
France, Germany, the Netherlands and Swe-

I 15% of the land to be developed for social

housing and may also be required to give
over land for green open space.
den.

Whilst many mechanisms for recouping better-

ment exist, it is not possible in some Member
I • A similar approach is to make a charge on
the developer directly related to the costs of
States to make the issuing of permits condi-
tional on the payment of any contributions.
providing infrastructure, as in Denmark, Ger- This is the case in Austria, the Belgian regions
I many, Italy and the Netherlands. In Germany
up to 90% of infrastructure costs associated
of Wallonia and Flanders, and the Netherlands.

with a given development may be recovered The Compendium has limited information on
I from the land owners by the municipalities
by using the Erschliessungsbeitrag, a local
this interesting though complex issue which is
also crucial for implementation. It would cer-
public infrastructure recoupment charge. tainly warrant further investigation.

I • An increasing trend is for municipalities to

negotiate individual contractual agreements Compensation for worsenment

I with the developer and/or land owners in-

stead of a fixed levy. This has been the case
in the UK for some time where taxes on
Within the majority of Member States, some
form of compensation is payable, but the

I development have been abandoned in fa-

vour of planning obligations. These are le-
gally binding agreements whereby the de-
circumstances in which it is paid vary. They are
summarised in Table C.7. There is limited
coherence in the approaches adopted across

I veloper agrees to provide infrastructure or

funding for services at the time the proposal
is considered. Similar schemes have also
the European Union. Moreover, applicants for
permits to build and adjacent landowners re-
ceive very different treatment and levels of
been introduced in Austria, Finland, France, compensation, depending upon individual
I Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Swe-
den. In Germany special urban development
Member States' laws.

contracts known as the Sta.dtebauliche Ver- In some Member States the decision to grant
I trag may be struck whereby developers may
be bound to pay all associated reasonable
or to refuse a building or development permit
may allow compensation claims, for example,
development costs. These contracts may Belgium, France and Germany. France and

I also be combined with a Vorhaben-und Er-

sch/iessungsplan (plan for building projects
Germany allow applicants to dispute the legal-
ity of decisions taken. In both countries, there
and local public infrastructure) which ena- is a need to show that damage is a direct result

I bles a project to be authorised in spite of

existing regulations. In the Netherlands there
is an increasing use of the baatbelasting
of the illegality of the decision taken and
protection is afforded both to applicants and to
third parties.

I (betterment tax levy) on non-municipal

owned land which addresses the trend for
more land to be developed privately.
In the case of Belgium, if a planning decision is
not in line with an approved plan, then the

I
I Regulations and permits 91

I
 I
Table C.7: Betterment and Compensation
I
Member State Compensation Betterment
(Duties and Obligations related to permit) I
Belgique-Belgie No compensation following the refusal of a permit Stamp duty. Part of cost for local infrastructure on
or as a result of an application being granted. If
decision based on plan cause$ economic dam-
age in some circumstances, compensation can
greenfield site. Local planning authorities can
demand private developers to provide buildings
or infrastructure for public amenities.
I
be claimed.
Danmark No compensation following refusal of permit or as
a result of application being granted. Full com-
pensation is payable if a binding plan reserves
Any increased property value through change in
zoning from rural to urban is taxed. I
land for public use.
Deutschland Compensation is payable where economic dam-
age results from the illegal refusal of an applica-
tion. If a plan is amended or annulled within seven
If a new development is on a greenfield site the
owner must pay 90% of cost for local infrastruc-
ture.
I
years. of the permission for a projecVuse then
any landowner suffering economic damage may
claim compensation. I
Elias No compensation following the refusal of a permit If site included in statutory town plan for first time,

I
or as a result of an application being granted. part of the land is taken by the state, through a
Full compensation is payable if a binding plan system of land adjustment for public use.
reserves land for public use.
Espana No compensation following the refusal of a permit 2.4-4% of building costs.

France
or as a result of an application being granted.
Compensation is payable for the illegal refusal of
an application.
1-5% tax on value of the property after the
granting of a permit. Public easement obliga-
I
tions.
Ireland-Eire Compensation where refusal/granting of permis-
sion results in loss of value with specified excep-
tions.
Charges levied in conditions attached to planning
consent.
I
Italia

Luxembourg
No compensation foilowing the refusal of a permit
or as a result of an application being granted.
No compensation following the refusal of a permit
5-20% of the building cost, exceptions are public
works.
None
• I
or as a result of an application being granted.
Nederland No compensation following the refusal of a permit
or as a result of an application being granted.
None, when building land is supplied by munici-
pality.
I
Osterreich No compensation following the refusal of a permit Land for roads to be ceded to municipality at no

Portugal
or as a result of an application being granted.
No compensation following the refusal of a permit
or as a result of an application being granted.
cost.
Taxes can be imposed on use of building and use
licenses.
I
Suomi-Finland No compensation generally following the refusal
of a permit or as a result of an application being
granted.
If land remains undeveloped in a significant part
of a plan three years after a building request is
given the municipality can expropriate from the
I
Full compensation is payable if a binding plan land owner(s) full compensation payment for

Sverige
reserves land for public use.
No compensation following the refusal of a build-
ing permit, with the exception of a refusal to
local infrastructure.
Payment for local infrastructure. I
replace a building with an equivalent one. No
compensation as a result of an application being
granted. If a plan is amended or annulled before
the end of its life span then any landowner
I
affected by the changes can claim compensa-
tion. If a plan causes economic damage to
owners in certain cases it is possible to claim
compensation.
I
United Kingdom No compensation for refusal/granting of permis- In certain circumstances local planning authori-
sion except in specified circumstances. ties may draw up agreements with developers to
provide buildings or infrastructure for public
amenities.
I
I
92 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I applicant may appeal to a higher authority. the existing value of the property required by
However, if the local authority is still not in the State. In some Member States compensa-

I favour of the development proposed, then it

can purchase the land or start plan reviewing
tion is payable if a binding plan reserves land
for public use, for example, Denmark, Finland
procedures, resulting in a potential ground for and Greece.

I compensation.

Compulsory purchase attracts compensation

In other Member States, changes in a detailed
plan at the local level may result in compen-
I across all the Member States which is deter-
mined according to various criteria. In Ger-
many, for instance, the value of the entschadi-
sation for example, Germany, the Netherlands
and Sweden.
gung (compensation) in such cases will repre-
I sent the open-market value of the property to
be acquired by the State. It may also take the
Some Member States require compensation to
be paid by the municipality if the decision
form of land replacement where the individual taken on a particular application is not in line
I whose property is being compulsorily pur-
chased shows it to be necessary to his liveli-
with the detailed plan at the local level or with
specific regulations which deem whether a
hood. In the Netherlands the prescribed level reason for refusal can be compensated or not,
I of compensation is high; in the region of twice for example, Belgium, France and Ireland.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Regulations and permits 93
I
I
I
I
I
I D Organisationsand mechanisms
I for developmentand conservation

I Introduction urban and rural areas. In some countries there

is a multiplicity of special organisations and/or
mechanisms, whereas in others, there are
In preparing the Compendium, there was a
I clear recognition that some countries have a
number of special organisations and mecha-
relatively few although this may be because
implementation is undertaken by the public
nisms which are designed to be either proac- authorities at some or all levels of government.

I tive in ensuring that development objectives

are realised or ensure that important elements
Furthermore, there is mixed experience of pub-
lic-private sector linkages in implementation
of the natural and built environment are con- throughout the European Union. There is, how-

I served or preserved. Our approach in the

Compendium has been to identify what insti-
ever, a growing interest in this partnership
approach, particularly in the fields of urban
renewal, town centres, economic development
tutions and initiatives have been put in place in

I order to realise spatial planning objectives (in

addition to the government spatial planning
framework and regulations). The emphasis on
and tourism.

Three broadly different approaches to plan

I public, private or joint public/private initiatives

to achieve implementation is also discussed
as well as land policy instruments. It is clear
implementation, particularly in terms of devel-
opment, may be categorised as follows:

I that there are enormous differences in the

approaches adopted by Member States, but
evaluating the effectiveness of such measures
• a predominantly public sector approach,
particularly at the regional and local levels.
For example, in Italy a plan led system with
in achieving their intended goals was not part
I of the remit of the Compendium.
several special public sector implementation
mechanisms enable both national and re-
gional government to promote and under-

I Approaches to implementation
and public-private sector linkages
take development through the expropriation
of land. In contrast to this emphasis on the
national and regional authorities, in the

I Approaches to plan implementation vary

widely from Member State to Member State. All
Netherlands most of the land assembly and
servicing of development land is undertaken
at the municipal level in accordance with an

I Member States have special organisations

and mechanisms for implementing develop-
ment and protecting the environment in both
approved 'bestemmingsp/an'. Denmark,
Finland, Portugal and Sweden also fall into
this public sector led approach;

I
I Organisations and mechanisms for development and conservation 95
 I
• a mixed approach in which the public sector One feature is, however, increasingly apparent
I
may have one or more of the following roles: throughout Europe, that is that the question of
an enabling, promotional role; a resource
coordinating role in terms of land assembly;
implementation is assuming a higher impor-
tance in spatial planning.
I
and joint ventures and partnerships. France,
for example, has a long tradition of, its
widespread use of SEMs (Societes Land policy mechanisms
I
d'Economie Mixte) which are semi-public
companies and ZACs (Zones d'Ame-
nagement Concerte). These are mixed de-
There are a number of mechanisms which are
designed to ensure that plans are imple-
I
velopment zones in which public authorities
mented. Often, these are also related to land
use their powers to secure the implementa-
tion of land development which has fre-
quently been initiated by a private developer.
policy which may be established in the consti-
tution, for example, France and Spain, or in
I
other legislation which embodies the objec-
The implementation of a ZAC then gives rise
to an agreement between the appropriate
developers regarding infrastructure provi-
tives of ensuring that increases in land values
resulting from plans are reflected in benefits to
I
the community and of preventing land specu-
sion. In other Member States, pragmatism
and realism when faced with restrictions in
public funding have often encouraged pub-
lation. The provision of local infrastructure and
land/buildings for public uses such as open I
spaces; social, health and educational facili-
lic authorities to seek joint-working and part-
nership to secure development. There is
widespread use of agreements to secure
ties; social housing; water/sewage, is a key
objective of these instruments. In other cases,
the public sector, usually the municipality, will
I
acquisitions, finance and grant aid for devel-
opment, often in association with the use of
European Union Structural Funds. Such an
initiate the implementation of a development
project or plan by acquiring and servicing the
relevant land and offering it to the market for
I
approach is particularly evident in Austria,
development, for example, the Netherlands. In
Belgium, and Ireland;
all cases there should be an appropriate plan
or it must be in the public interest.
I
• a predominantly private sector-led ap-
proach. There are two distinct types. First,
there are situations where the private sector
The main types of land policy instruments for
implementation of plans (other than the issuing
I
leads implementation and where there is or withholding of permits - see Section C) are
little governmental control. Greece is an
example where most land development for
as follows:
I
industry, commerce or residential use is • land acquisition by agreement;
almost wholly undertaken by the private
sector. Often this is not within a strong
plan-led framework, but a situation where
• land banking; I
plans record actual development. Second,
are situations where development is virtually
all private sector dominated, but within a
• expropriation or compulsory purchase;

• pre-emption rights;
I
strong publicly controlled framework. In this
context national and local government may
play an important facilitating or enabling role
• local infrastructure development; I
in a wide range of public schemes and • re-parcellisation.
programmes. These national schemes for
specific areas require leverage of funding
I
from the private sector as an important Land acquisition by agreement
element of the overall package. An example
of this type of approach is the UK, particu- In most countries, public authorities, particu- I
larly in the field of urban regeneration. larly the municipalities, can acquire land in

I
96 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I order to achieve its spatial planning objectives. development takes place in the time period
Providing land for housing has been a key then the municipality can rezone the land back

I objective of municipalities since the 1950s.

More recently other objectives have assumed
importance, particularly economic activities.
to green land. In Spain, new legislation also
requires implementation of development within
a specified time period; if surpassed it is then

I Voluntary acquisition has been widely used

and led to strategic acquisitions of land by
public authorities as a means of controlling the
legally possible to diminish land value or even
to exercise expropriation by the municipality to
put that land onto the market.

I process of implementation according to plans.

Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Swe-
den have made wide use of this mechanism. Expropriation or compulsory purchase

I Land banking
Most Member States have the power of expro-
priation or compulsory purchase, which ena-
bles any tier of government to purchase land in
I As a consequence of acquiring land by agree-
ment municipalities in particular, have built up
the public interest. The majority of the relevant
legislation is in separate acts from the main
large areas of publicly owned land banks. In planning acts. In Denmark, however, although
I some countries, such as Germany, the use of
pre-emption and expropriation has also con-
expropriation powers are found in individual
acts related to public roads, urban renewal
tributed to acquiring this supply of land. By etc., the most comprehensive powers of com-
I controlling the supply of land in this way,
administrations seek to implement a detailed
pulsory purchase are found in the Planning
Act. Normally, land expropriated is undertaken
plan at the local level through phased dispos- in the public interest and in most cases pur-

I als of serviced land. In the Netherlands, the

municipality borrows the money for the costs
chased at the existing market value without
consideration of any enhanced value. Exam-
of land acquisition and servicing. The loan is ples of expropriation powers can be found in

I secured on the surety of the serviced land. If

the expected income from disposals would not
be sufficient to cover the costs, the municipal-
Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy and Luxem-
bourg, Spain and the UK. In a number of
countries expropriation is a time consuming

I ity can decide to subsidise the land develop-

ment. Under certain conditions, the national
government may provide a subsidy (Beslvit
and politically sensitive process and as a result
. is seen as a last resort and therefore rarely
used, for example in Austria, Denmark, Fin-
land, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden.
I lokatiegebonden subsidie). Restrictions on
public finance and the role of the private sector
have; however, reduced land banking in many A specific declaration that the development is
countries, and the disposal of publicly pur- in the public interest (dee/oration d'utilite pub-
I chased land is a more recent trend, for exam-
ple, in Denmark and the UK.
lique), preceded by a public inquiry is required
in France before expropriation can take place.
In Germany the establishment of Sta.debau/i-
I As well as land banking by municipalities there
is concern in some Member States that owners
che Entwicklunsbereiche (urban development
zones) means that, by law, the municipality
of land zoned for development in plans will acquires all the plots of land in the designated

I retain it as an asset or for speculative pur-

poses, rather than develop it. As a result new
zone, including the use of expropriation where
the owners are not willing to sell.
policies are being introduced to encourage

I implementation of the plan. For example, in

Austria some of the Lander have introduced
new legislation which requires owners of sites
Pre-emption rights

I zoned as building land to enter into a contract

with the municipality to implement develop-
ment within a specified time period. If no
A number of Member States have the provision
to exercise pre-emption rights, which are nor-
mally used to acquire land to provide public

I
I Organisations and mechanisms for development and conservation 97

I
 I
facilities, in particular local infrastructure, or to and the municipality; ranging from a greater
I
aid in the implementation of detailed plans at role for the landowners: the compensation
the local level. Pre-emption rights vary greatly
between Member States. In the Netherlands,
system; the cooperation system, and; finally
the expropriation system. The processes, par-
I
pre-emption rights require landowners, in cer- ticularly on urban land with complex ownership
tain specified areas, to offer their property for
sale to the municipality first. The land must be
patterns, mean that this practice in reality is
more difficult to achieve. Another example is
I
offered to the municipality at the current mar- Germany, where the reallocation procedure
ket value. These powers are currently rarely
used, although there are proposals tb extend
(Um/egung)requires a resolution which desig-
nates the reallocation area and prohibits sales I
the areas where pre-emption can be used. In of land and other changes within it without a
France, Germany and Sweden (with the ex-
ception of normal single family houses) pre-
emption rights permit municipalities within a
special permission. An Umlegungsplan (a re-
allocation plan) must be produced, usually in
agreement with those affected.
I
specified area, to enter into any contract of
sale which a landowner makes with a pur-
chaser, and gives the municipality the right to
Land policy is therefore an important consid-
eration in understanding the spatial planning
I
purchase the land at the current market value,
normally the actual sale price. In Greece, land
can be acquired by the national government
system in any Member State, particularly in its
attempts to try and ensure development ob-
jectives can be met. The extent to which the
I
as a charge imposed on landowners, when characteristics of land law and policy can be
their land is brought into the area covered by
an official town plan.
addressed in the Compendium is limited. The
case studies illustrate some of the linkages
I
between land use policy and the mechanisms

Local infrastructure development

available for bringing forward land for develop-
ment, and other aspects of land policy. They
I
demonstrate the significance of these matters
Municipalities or other public authorities are
responsible for providing the necessary local
for the implementation of spatial planning
policy. Land policy is an area where further
investigation and comparison would be most
I
infrastructure such as public roads, water and
sewerage systems, public spaces, health/edu-
cation facilities, etc. Land allocated for local
infrastructure development must normally be
useful.
I
in a detailed plan at the local level and powers
of acquisition, including compulsory purchase
can be exercised. The municipality or other
Special organisations
& mechanisms for promotion I
acquiring authority needs to be the mandatory
of development
authority for local infrastructure development
and its construction/maintenance or have As well as the systems of plans and regula-
I
powers in sectoral legislation. tions noted above there is a profusion of
special mechanisms and organisations to pro-
mote development, although the scale of this
I
Re-parcellisation varies significantly across different Member

In some Member States, there are complex

States. The variety of approaches is indicated
in Table D.1. There are a number of different
I
procedures for re-parcellisation of land or land factors which may help to explain this variety.
assembly for a project. In Spain, in line with
Constitutional objectives the Ley de/ Suelo and
Whilst many of these factors are inter-related
they include:-
I
other regulations seek to ensure that landown-
ers receive equal returns per unit area. There
are three processes which involve different
a) the extent of public - private sector link-
ages and the need for coordinating agen- I
roles for the group of landowners concerned cies;

I
98 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
-------------------
0
co
Table D.1: Special organisations and mechanisms for development
-1

Ill
::, Regional Local Urban Public Major Tourism Rural Partner• Special Mainfocus of activityand responsibilities
;;;;· economic economic regenera- sector infrastruc- develop- develop- ship agencies
!!l. develop- develop- tion develop- ture ment ment
5· ment ment ment
::,
policies
"'
gJ
Q. Belgique-Belgie ** * * * ** * * * Strong regional agencies, predominantly public sector orientated,
though with private input. Inter-communal partnerships also important.
3
CD
()
Danmark * * * * * * Predominantly a municipality activity, few special arrangements for
:::r promoting development.
Ill
::, Deutsch land ** * ** * * * * ** * The Bund and the Lander governments and many public and semi-
;;;;·
public agencies promote equivalent living conditions throughout Ger-
3
Cf) many. At the local level urban regeneration projects are normally
public/private cooperation partnership arrangements.
Q
Q. Elias* * * * * * * * Fragmented development market provides little scope for partnership
c.g arrangements. Projects funded by central government often linked to
CD CSF.
0 Espana ** ** * ** ** ** * Major programmes to address socio-economic disparities. Private
-0
3 sector mostly responsible for development promotion with the govern-
CD ment administration providing support, incentives and control.
3.
Ill France ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** * Srong tradition of public-sector led programmes with semi-public
::, companies (SEM) often being used to achieve development objec-
Q.
()
lives.
0 * ** ** * * * ** ** ** Strong emphasis on public/private partnerships and joint ventures,
:::, Ireland-Eire
"'
CD
with particular emphasis on urban regeneration, rural development
and local economic development.
<
!!l. Italia ** * * * * * * * * Limited number of organisations, but stron~ ..in tourism. Public sector
5· agencies have been predominant up !ii now although there is

. .. .
::,

Luxembourg ** * * ** .. increased use of public/private partnerships.

Central Government normally takes the lead in major development
programmes. Partnerships are formed between local authorities and

Nederland . * .. .. ** * ** * *
the private sector.
Predominantly public sector led, implementation mainly at the munici-
pal level. Some partnership projects for large scale urban redevelop•
ment.
Osterreich ** * * ** * ** * ** * Strong and growing emphasis on special agencies, particularly for
economic development. A tradition of public/private partnerships in
tourism. A trend of transferring services to independent companies.
Portugal ** * * * ** * * * Limited private/public partnerships, with most projects implemented

Suomi-Finland ** * * ** ** * **
-.. *
by the municipalities with significant state funding.
Special public sector mechanisms are targeted at underdeveloped
rural and agricultural areas. Some public/private partnerships espe-
cially in relation to urban renewal schemes.
Sverige * * * ** ** * * Variety of measures to promote development in specific locations,
which are predominantly public sector led. •
United Kingdom * ** ** * * ** ** ** Emphasis on pro~rty led development in towns and cities. Many ad
hoc agencies an schemes to provide funding arrangements services
and facilities. Strong emphasis on public/private partnerships.

** significant * moderate none,no significant

emphasis.
CD
co
 I
b) the degree of public sector intervention in purchase of land and provision of infrastruc-
I
the development and implementation proc- ture which in a number of countries is enabled
ess; by special plans within the spatial planning
framework. Nor is there any necessary indica- I
c) the perceived issues and problems that tion of the relative effectiveness of various
affect particular regions, cities or areas and
the need for special remedial action to
initiatives, which is beyond the scope of the
Compendium. I
encourage new investment;

d) the potential opportunities for attracting in-

Development promotion tends to take place at
the regional and municipal levels, although I
ward investment. there are examples of national schemes, such

Hence in some countries regional economic

development is perceived as a priority area, .
as the tax on unbuilt zoned land in Austria. At
the regional level, development promotion is
intended to reduce disparities and is often
I
elsewhere it might be urban regeneration, rural
development, tourist development or any com-
bination depending on priorities. Where, for
linked to European Union funding. It is gener-
ally a function of national or regional govern-
ment which make use of special incentives. In
I
example, a topic area is seen as a significant Austria, Finland, Greece, Portugal and Spain
priority area by a particular country, then spe-
cial agencies or partnership approaches are
special mechanisms have been introduced to
promote development in the less populated
I
promoted in order to facilitate implementation and underdeveloped peripheral regions. In
of development objectives. In its approach to
local economic development and urban re-
Germany the special problem of the new
Lander has received great attention with nu-
I
generation, tor example, policy in the UK has merous initiatives to bring about equivalent
created many ad hoc agencies and funding
schemes with increasing emphasis being
living conditions.
I
placed on public-private partnerships. This At the municipal level many special initiatives
contrasts with the Netherlands where public
sector intervention in implementation is
have been introduced to promote urban re-
generation. For example, in Germany there is I
stronger and the creation of special agencies special urban planning legislation Stadtebauli-
and partnerships much less pronounced, de-
spite the significance of urban regeneration
and rural revitalisation being important priority
ches SanierungsmaBnahmen(urban redevel-
opment measures) in the Federal Building
Code which grants implementation measures
I
areas.

Denmark and Greece have relatively few spe-

to municipalities in a unified concept. It in-
cludes the designation of a Sanierungsgebiet
(redevelopment area) with suitable implemen-
I
cial initiatives, whereas other countries have tation instruments such as reserved or condi-
many more. The UK provides the clearest
example of the use of an extensive range of
tional permission, enforcement orders and the
inclusion of special agencies in the scheme. In
I
additional organisations and mechanisms Ireland, the Urban Renewal Act 1986 gives
which are intended to promote development. power to the Minister of Environment to de-
clare on the basis of special need, a desig-
I
It should be noted that the existence of these nated area for urban renewal. This will estab-
additional mechanisms may not be a good
indicator of the level of attention paid to devel-
lish, where appropriate, development authori-
ties or development companies to acquire
I
opment promotion. In Member States with land, secure development or renewal and pro-
fewer special initiatives, the formal systems of
plan making and regulation may perform much
vide infrastructure, for example the Customs
House Docks DevelopmentAuthorityin Dublin. I
of the implementation task, for example, in
Denmark where the system of plan making
and regulation perform a wider range of func-
tions. This is particularly the case with the
Member States report that at the municipal
level special initiatives supplement the normal I
powers of the government, which retains over-

I
100 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I all control. ,However, there is a distinct trend protection measures for the natural environ-
towards establishing more partnership ar- ment.

I rangements with the private sector, and the

transfer of activities from government to inde- Special organisations and mechanisms for
pendent agencies. In some cases, there are environmental protection can be divided into
I long standing arrangements for public-private
• working through 'semi-public' companies, as
in France, Germany and Ireland. Other mecha-
t:No main approaches. First, there is the pres-
ervation of wildlife and natural habitats based
on some scientific logic and embodied in
I nisms for public-private partnerships in devel-
opment have been identified for Austria, Bel-
gium, Finland, Ireland and the UK. Other coun-
legislation, for example, the Habitats Directive,
special protection areas (SPA) and national
nature reserves (NNA). Second, there are

I tries are moving in this direction, or are in-

creasing the options available with new
mechanisms recently introduced in Denmark
mechanisms aimed at the conservation of
designated landscape for cultural and amenity
reasons, for example, national parks and areas
and Germany.
I Overall therefore, there is a range of responses
of outstanding natural beauty (AONB).

to particular policy issues and while need for In the majority of Member States there are
I special or additional powers, responsibilities
and/or agencies varies from Member State to
three specific types of area that tend to be
protected on environmental grounds. First, na-
Member State there is clearly a growing rec- tional parks are . designated over areas of
ognition of the need for consideration to be special value for landscape conservation and
given to implementing policy objectives. recreation value. Ireland, Finland, France, Ger-
many, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK for
example, all make use of this designation. The
designation has proved very popular and is
being taken up more widely, for example, new
Special organisations and national parks are soon to be introduced in
mechanisms for environmental Italy. In other countries, similar designations
protection and conservation may apply to special areas, such as the pro-

I Not only is there growing concern regarding

tection of forests in Greece. Many similar des-
ignations apply to limited areas of ecological
or agricultural value, such as the national
mechanisms and agencies to help promote
I and implement development there is also ris-
ing awareness of the importance and vulner-
ecological reserves in Portugal.

ability of the national and historic built environ- Second, coastal zones in many Member

I ment. The response of many Member States is

the creation of an ever increasing array of
States draw attention to the special initiatives
taken to protect the coast from development
special organisations and mechanisms con- and environmental damage. Member States

I cerned with environmental protection and con-

servation. Table 02 provides a summary of the
with relatively long coastlines such as Den-
mark, Finland, France, Greece, Sweden and
the UK all mention the existence of special
extent to which Member States have felt it

I necessary to develop special organisations

and mechanisms for the protection and con-
measures. In Sweden, shores and banks of the
coast, lakes, rivers and streams are protected
by a prohibition to build (although exemptions
servation of the natural and cultural heritage.

I Whilst priorities vary from country to country all

have significant special designations or or-
ganisations to supplement or complement the
can be granted). In Portugal, special physical
plans covering the whole of the coastal zone
are being prepared. In Belgium, the Dune

I spatial planning system in order to effect envi-

ronmental protection and conservation. Spain
for example, has no less than 25 special
Decree 1993 intends to protect the remaining
dunes and implies strong limitations on devel-
opment rights and compensation rights.

I
I Organisations and me.chanisms for development and conservatio~ 101
...... Table D2: Special organisations and mechanisms for environmental protection and conservation
0
I\)

Countryside Environmen- Coastal Urban Preservation/ Natural Mainfocus of activityand responsibilities

conservation tal planning conservation conservation resource
conservation of historic planning
buildings
Belgique-Belgie * * * * ** ** Public sector led by regions. Schemes to integrate natural environment protection. Wide
range of semi public agencies in natural resource planning.
Danmark ** ** ** * * * Protecting and conserving the environment is a central feature of the planning system. A
predominantly public sector activity with a number of special national agencies, for
example National Forest and Nature Agency.
Deutschland ** ** * ** ** * Conservation and protection of the environment is mainly the responsibility of the Lander
through their own legislation or under a framework provided by the Bund.
Elias ** * ** ** ** * Highly centralised approach with environmental protection issues the responsibility of
' national government and regional prefectures. Protection of forestry and coastal areas a
priority.
Espana ** ** * * * ** Numerous special protection measures for the natural environment. Public sector respon-
sibility.
France * ** ** ** ** ** Comprehensive legislation on environmental protection with special authorisation needed
for development in conservation designated areas. Specific national agencies exist for
coastal planning (Observatoire) and historic conservation (Architecte des batiments de
France).
Ireland-Eire ** ** * * * * Recent strengthening of environmental policy, strongly influenced by European Union
initiatives. Urban conservation relatively weak, despite a number of special agencies
designed to protect, record and manage Ireland's historic fabric.
-I
:::, Italia ** ** * * ** * A number of consultative agencies exist, though powers and instruments for environmental
CD rotection are being enhanced. A new Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione (Environmental
m ~rotection Board) has been established, and countryside conservation enhanced through
C the introduction of national and regional Parks and extended protection of marine areas.
8 Luxembourg * ** * ** ** The protection of the natural and human environment is of major significance for all public
3
-c, authorities, assisted by environment groups such as Natura and Mouvement Eco/ogique.
CD * * ** **
:J Nederland ** Much natural environment protection lies beyond the scope of the planning system though
a. there are schemes attempting to produce a more integrated framework. There is a strong
c.· programme of national and municipal listing of buildings, with associated subsidies. Water
3 management is of great importance.
g_ *
Osterreich * * * * Strong emphasis on environmental protection especially in alpine areas and village
en
-c, renewal schemes. Mainly a public sector function with a close association with various
!ll- voluntary non profit making bodies.
~ ** * ** * * ** Important national mechanisms for the coast, prepared or approved by the relevant
-c, Portugal
Ministries are important in constraining development. Water planning management is also
fi5" important.
:J
:J
s· Suomi-Finland * ** * * * ** Natural heritage very important with a long history of national protection. Range of bodies
(0
and agencies, often acting at the regional and municipal level to protect natural features.
~ Sverige * ** * * * ** Environmental protection is a public sector activity. National policy is implemented by local

*
3
en
CJ
United Kingdom ** * * ** ** *
government through a wide array of mechanisms.
An extensive range of predominantly quasi autonomous, some semi-private and voluntary
agencies are charged with conserving the built and natural heritage. Large tracts of the
:J country are covered by special designations aimed at protecting the flora and fauna, and
a. preserving landscape characteristics.
u
Q.
** significant * moderatenone,none, significantemphasis.
o"
c5·
(/)
I
I Third; the protection of the built environment
occurs where the architectural heritage and/or
in England which are concerned with the con-
servation of the natural and built environment,

I historical connections are in need of preserva~

tion. All Member States (with the exception of
the Flanders and Brussels regions of Belgium)
respectively. There is a trend for former execu-
tive functions of some government depart-
ments in relation to environmental protection to

I designate parts of urban areas as conserva-

tion areas where the objective is to preserve,
conserve and enhance the fabric of the area
be transferred to independent agencies, but
answerable to central government depart-
ments, for example, in Italy, Portugal and the
which is valued for its historical or aesthetic UK.
I qualities. In nearly all countries this is supple-
mented by lists of buildings and monuments of There is growing recognition of the importance
particular merit and worthy of special protec- of protecting Europe's natural and cultural
I tion. In both cases more stringent regulation
controls are applied, but gen~rally these are
heritage. Increasing areas of Europe are being
designated for special protection though
supported with other measures, usually whether such actions by themselves afford the
I grants, designed to enhance the environment. protection required is beyond the scope of the
Compendium. Thus it is clear that there is an
Environmental protection and management is increasing number of mechanisms, institutions

I seen almost wholly as a public sector activity,

although some countries do note a limited
input from the private and voluntary sectors.
and arrangements intended to aid the imple-
mentation of a range of spatial planning poli-
cies and objectives. The importance of effec-

I Local government generally has an important

role in the implementation of initiatives (except
in Greece). In some countries special organi-
tive implementation whether to promote devel-
opment or protect the natural and built envi-
ronment appears to be being given a higher

I sations are also involved, for example the

Conservatoire de l'Espace Uttora/ et des Ri-
vages Lacustres in France which is concerned
priority. The case studies will help to elaborate
on the effectiveness of these activities in com-
plementing the formal spatial planning system
with coastal planning and English Nature, the and helping to achieve identifiable policy goals
I Countryside Commission and English Heritage and objectives.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Organisations and mechanisms for development and conservation 103
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I E Overviewof policies
I Introduction the summaries. Spatial planning policy is di-
verse and complex, often closely interrelated
I The individual country volumes of the Com-
pendium describe policies and current issues
with other non-spatial policy. Also what is
expressed as policy can be interpreted in
many different ways, and it is certainly not
in spatial planning. Sections E and F of the
I Comparative Review summarise this informa-
tion. This section provides an overview of
always closely related to what happens in
practice. Thus the reader is advised to consult
the country and case study volumes for a more
planning policies and Section F provides a
I summary of the main themes of policy for a
range of sectors. They are
rounded picture.

The discussion of policies is divided into lev-

I • commercial development
els: EU, national, regional and local. This refers
to the policies pursued by the different levels of
government. The variation in the meaning of
• economic development the terms in particular countries is recognised.
I • environmental management
This is especially the case for 'regional', which
means the Lander as well as regions in Ger-
many. Also, in some countries there is consid-
I • heritage erable overlap between the tiers. Despite diffi
culties in interpretation, this approach has
0

• housing been adopted for ease of comparison be-

I • industrial development
tween the countries. The division of policy tiers
allows for identification of areas of emphasis at
the different broad levels of government. For

I • leisure and tourism

• natural resources
example, in the case of housing policy, the
discussion shows that the general emphasis at
national level is very much on fiscal measures,

I • transport
whereas at the local level the emphasis is on
spatial policy and measures to locate housing
in particular areas.

I • waste management and pollution.

Any attempt to summarise these disparate

The discussion here gives particular attention
to areas of commonality and difference. It is

I approaches may give the impression that

there is more consistency than there really is. It
is important to bear this in mind when reading
intended to provide a brief description of the
general thrust of policies and the more impor-
tant contextual issues which give rise to them.

I
OveNiew of policies 105
I
I
 I
Examples are used to illustrate the points • the political imperative to produce sustain-
I
made, or to introduce particularly interesting able patterns of economic growth and
features of policy. Reference should be made
to the country volumes for further explanation.
physical development.
I
Each of the case study volumes also includes The effect of these factors on spatial develop-
an overview section which illustrates how
these policies operate within the systems in
ment and planning differs from location to
location, but general trends in the issues which
I
practice and how they contribute to general spatial planning policy seeks to address are
themes of cross-border and transnational ini-
tiatives, the local implementation of EU poli-
evident. They are in summary
I
cies, the management of urban growth and the • social and economic polarisaion with the
protection of vulnerable locations. concentration of economic activities in cer-
tain core areas giving rise to increasing I
congestion, whilst at the same time rural

The context for spatial planning

decline and depopulation and a weakening
role for many town centres; I
The changing socio-economic, physical and
political geography of Europe is set out fully in
• the conversion of land uses, especially the
loss of agricultural land through urban I
sprawl, and the creation of derelict and
other reports of the Commission such as Eu-
rope 2000+ (i 994) and Competitiveness and
Cohesion: Trends in the Regions, The Fifth
contaminated land in urban areas;
I
• damage or threats to the quality of the
Periodic Report (i 994). These documents il-
lustrate the complexity of the context within
which spatial planning operates. This section
environment, and the pressure on vulner-
able areas of environmental value and natu-
ral resources;
I
summarises the main concerns that are de-
scribed in the country volumes and other
working papers produced through the Com-
• increasing levels of waste and associated
problems of reuse, disposal and pollution.
I
pendium project.

Four factors are consistently identified as be-

This is by no means and exhaustive list but it
identifies the most pressing issues. As is well
I
ing crucial in determining current spatial plan-
ning policy. They are
known, certain problems are particularly acute
in parts of the EU. The problems of urban
sprawl and environmental degradation are
I
• the scale of urban growth and increasing
demands on land for housing, employment,
leisure and other activities;
acute in the regions bordering the Mediterra-
nean. The problems of congestion and derelict
land are acute in core cities and older indus-
I
trial areas of northern Europe. But despite
• increasing internationalisation of economic
forces, the relative competitiveness of Eu-
these concentrations many issues are of com-
mon concern, and spatial planning policy is
I
rope's economies internally and externally, often framed to tackle similar problems, al-
and the impact on employment; though the detailed experience may differ.
Three issues of general concern warrant a little
I
more explanation. The first two are concerned
• the impact of European integration across
the whole of the European continent, but
particularly the policies of the EU;
with substantive problems that spatial plan-
ning, along with other government policy must I
address - unemployment environmental deg-

• increasing personal mobility as reflected in

travel, tourism and migration;
radation. The third issue is a concern with the
capacity of existing institutional arrangements
to be able to deliver the integrated policy
I
I
106 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I responses that are necessary to address these flicts of interest that surround development
complex spatial development problems. and environmental protection issues at all lev-

I Unemployment and the related issue of social

els, making it difficult to reach a consensus on
crucial matters.
deprivation are major factors across the EU

I and are cited as important considerations in

spatial policy making by almost all countries.
There are significant implications for those
The need for more coordination across frag-
mented and compartmentalised policy areas
is widely recognised. It is also being system-

I regions that are hardest hit by the decline of

traditional industries whether in urban or rural
areas, and for those whose starting point in
atically addressed, especially in the northern
Member States. The categorisation in this re-
port follows a simple topic by topic structure
terms of economic performance is low in rela- and so it may underplay the existence of
I tion to the Community average. Regional dis-
parities are significant also within countries.
integrated programmes of action on such
problems as urban renewal and rural revitali-
The effect of these economic considerations is sation.
I fundamental to spatial planning policy, espe-
cially in the way they shape the selective use of Nevertheless, the country volumes suggest
constraints and incentives to influence the that the reality of policy making and implemen-
I location of mobile investment, and the primacy
given to economic development considera-
tation in most countries is very much compart-
mentalised along topic lines, and that inte-
tions in decision making. grated programmes are the exception rather
I Concern over environmental degradation and
than the rule. The case study volumes of the
Compendium are intended to explore this
threats to fragile ecosystems is also wide- question in more detail by investigating the

I spread. Environmental problems are multifac-

eted and are linked to increasing pollution and
waste, congestion and energy use, unregu-
implementation of particular projects, all of
which cut across numerous policy topics as
well as spatial planning. The case studies also

I lated urban development, damaging industrial

activities and intensive tourism. Changing pub-
lic attitudes to the importance of environmental
point to examples, especially in Denmark, Fin-
land and the Netherlands where some
progress has been made in establishing a

I quality and the suggested linkage to economic

prosperity have been significant in bringing
about advances in policy in this area. EU
more integrated policy framework, and where
the policy and action has widespread support
in government and local communities.
policy and international agreements and pro-
I tocols promoting sustainable development
have also been important in shaping re-
European union policies
sponses.
I The third area of concern that comes out The EU has direct and indirect effects on policy
clearly in the Member State reports is the in many of the topic areas. The EU is becom-
I institutional context for policy making and im-
plementation and especially the lack of proc-
ing an increasingly important source for policy
related to spatial development, although inter-
esses and mechanisms for establishing inte- estingly, not in the areas at the core of most

I grated policy measures, both horizontally

across the topic areas, and vertically from
spatial development policy. The effect of EU
policy is greatest in the fields of environmental
national to neighbourhood levels. The problem protection (as noted above); and regional

I is exemplified by the weak links that often exist

between transport and land use policy, and
crucially between funding programmes supp-
policy where the Structural and Cohesion
Funds in many cases have enabled Member
States and regions to realise spatial planning

I porting economic development and regional

policy and spatial planning. Linked to the
integration problem is the very obvious con-
objectives. Also of particular importance are
changes in the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP), for example, policy related to the use of

I
I 107
Overview of policies

I
 I
agricultural land, the Single European Market governments. The exceptions to this in many
I
(SEM) and the trans-European networks policy areas related to spatial planning are
(TEN). Beyond these, numerous other EU poli-
cies have direct implications for national policy,
Belgium, where regional government is largely
autonomous, and to a lesser extent, Austria. I
such as in the fields of tourism and energy. On
some policy topics the EU is considered to
have little influence or only an indirect influ-
National· governments generally play the cen-
tral role in policies to support industry and I
ence. This is particularly the case in policy for regional economic policy. The linkage with EU
housing and commercial activities, which are
central to patterns of spatial development.
policy on these matters is important. However,
there are situations where national policy may I
not mirror EU policy exactly, say in the identi-
As well as EU policy itself, it is important to
mention the general effects of the rapidly
changing political geography of the European
fication of areas for special assistance, but
rather complements it, addressing a different
mix of priorities and criteria. National govern-
I
continent for spatial development policy and
action in the Member States. Changes in cen-
tral and eastern European countries have ma-
ments generally reserve powers to adjust the
spatial planning policy framework where nec-
essary to allow for special designations or
I
jor spatial development implications, espe- systems of regulation in areas of high unem-
cially in housing and transport. New· axes of
communication are being created from west to
• ployment where spatial planning and other
special fiscal policies apply. In areas of con-
I
east (although existing ones between Greece centrated economic decline, national govern-
and the rest of the EU have been severed by
the conflict in the former Yugoslavia). In other
ment may take direct responsibility from local
authorities for policy implementation (as in the
I
parts of Europe, major infrastructure projects case of the UK's urban development corpora-
have been completed or planned to address
the problem of linking peripheral areas to the
centre of Europe with obvious planning impli-
tions) or a major interest as a partner with local
authorities and other interests as is frequently
the case in France.
I
cations. Across and beyond the EU, new elec-
tronic communications infrastructure will also
have profound spatial development implica-
Not surprisingly, national level policy is very I
important across the community in environ-
tions in the longer term. mental policy. This is partly the result of the
impact of European legislation which has been
put into action in the Member States by na-
I
National level policies tional government. National environmental
policies typically seek to address the coordi-
nation of previously piecemeal ad hoc policy
I
National governments tend to have a signifi-
cant role in the formulation and implementa- .
tion of policies relating to economic develop-
responses to individual environmental prob-
lems. This has affected institutional arrange-
ments in some countries, with the creation of
I
ment, transport, tourism and natural resource special agencies and co-ordinating organisa-
management including minerals. These are
the topics either most closely associated with
tions for environmental policy. For example, in
France a separate Ministry of the Environment
I
the economic policy and prosperity of the was created in 1992 which presides over an
country as a whole, or where there is a par-
ticular need for top down strategic policy to
interministerial committee on the environment.
In some countries a broad advisory group has
I
address issues which could not be reconciled been established to comment on environmen-
locally. In other fields it is the norm for the
national government to lay down a broad
tal policy, such as the Irish 'Green 2000 Advi-
sory Group' and the UK 'Round Table on I
framework or general guidance that should be Sustainabile Development'. The national level
taken into account at the regional and local
levels, and to provide through law, the mecha-
nisms which can be used by regional and local
is the most important in both policy and imple-
mentation for the identification, designation
and protection of buildings, sites, or land-
I
I
108 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I scapes of environmental or heritage impor- support of the EU) and identification of impor-
. tance. tant intermodal nodes. The completion of key

I The national level is also primarily responsible

for setting standards for waste policy (although
road connections has also been important for
most countries. Transport policy is essentially
linked to perceived problems of peripherality,

I the identification of sites is primarily done at

the regional level). The principles of 'reduce,
reuse, and recovery' of waste are now well
whether that be within the EU, Member State or
region. The firmest policy on this has been
made in France which seeks to ensure that no

I established across the whole of the Commu-

nity, with consistent emphasis also on the
principles of self sufficiency and proximity. It is
part of the country is more than 45 minutes by
car from a motorway or TGV station.

I the implementation of these principles which

requires coordination of waste management
policy at the national level, including recycling,
In those countries where tourism is of signifi-
cant national importance in the economy na-
tional policies have been established to pro-
waste disposal, and to some extent, the land tect tourism development from conversion to
I use implications, together with financial meas-
ures and standards of waste management.
other uses and to generally promote and in
many case deflect or expand the pressures for
Special controls invariably operate at national tourism. The need to resolve the conflicts
I level for the most difficult and dangerous
waste products. Where specific sites need to
between tourism development and environ-
mental . protection is important in national
be identified this is usually left to regional or policy, especially in Denmark, France, Ireland,

I local government, within a national framework.

National policies are also important in the
the Netherlands and Spain. At the national
level attention is also being paid to linking
working of mineral deposits. They typically funding for new infrastructure with the desire to

I include policies to reduce the demand for

minerals by recycling, together with firm con-
straints on the areas of the country where
spread tourism activity and both its costs and
benefits.

I mineral working is acceptable.

Changes to the CAP have brought about sig-

Policies for the control of commercial develop-
ment are generally formulated and imple-
mented at the local level within the context of

I nificant changes in farming and the demand

for agricultural land including promotion of less
intensive farming and diversification of rural
some general guidance. However, there are
examples of a much more proactive approach
from central governments, especially in France
economies which has also largely been ad- and Ireland where national government has
I dressed through national policy measures.
Linked to this are policies to increase areas
established a policy for locating public sector
service activities in areas with high unemploy-
under forestry. National policy in relation to ment, and for providing direct incentives to
I rural diversification and agriculture is most
often expressed through fiscal rather than land
influence the location of private sector invest-
ment.
use measures, perhaps reflecting the generally
I weaker land use controls over agriculture, and
the need to provide incentives.Again, the local
Regional level policies
implication of these changes including the

I effect on particular sites is left to the local level.

Spatial and related policy across the EU re-

The significance of the regional level for most
policy areas depends very much on the au-

I flects the notion that promotion of new and

refurbished transport infrastructure is a key to
economic development. In most countries
tonomy of the regional government institu-
tions. In the federal Member States, the re-
gional level plays a very important role in policy

I these policies are centred on public transport,

and improving transport infrastructure, espe-
cially high speed rail networks (often with the
formulation and implementation, and in Bel-
gium and Austria the regional level tends to be
the dominant level for many policy fields re-

I
I Overview of policies 109

I
 I
lated to spatial planning. Generally it is at the pie in Denmark and Germany, and between
I
regional level that the broad policy frameworks Finland, Sweden and Russia.
set by national governments are translated into
implementation, although for core policy areas
I
such as economic development, and increas-
ingly environmental protection, central govern-
ment tends to retain significant powers, often
Locai •1evel policies
I
through special agencies.

Regional authorities have a role in the distribu-

Local government plays the most significant
role in the determination of locations for devel-
opment, especially in relation to new housing
I
tion of Structural Funds, although this is very and commercial development, and local eco-
much in partnership with the EU and national
government. The regional tier will have inde-
nomic development. Regulation and permit
systems can have important consequences
I
pendent grant or incentive schemes for eco- through the cumulative effect of many indi-
nomic development and tourist initiatives.
Some 'regional level'policies apply not to ad-
vidual decisions, whether it is a tourist devel-
opment, new housing, commercial premises
I
minstrative regions but to special areas such or waste disposal. Indeed in terms of land use
as the Alpine areas of Austria, the summer
cottage zone in Denmark, coastal zones, or for
decisions and the location of development,
local authorities make most decisions on the
I
water management across catchment areas. conversion of land uses. Whilst national and
Problems of coordination between the con-
stituent administrative regions and/or between
them and 'spatial planning regions,' is not
regional policies provide a framework, the
extent to which they contain local decision I
making especially through programming de-
uncommon in these circumstances. velopment varies with major implications for
the coordination and overall sustainability of I
The regional level is also important where land development. Local authorities may also bring
use decisions have wide ranging and conten-
tious implications as is the case with minerals
and waste disposal policy. These are policy
their own resources to bear on these issues
(for example in Spain 30% of funding for
economic development is determined at the
I
areas where reaching agreement is particularly
difficult at the local level, and the regional
authority will be given responsibility for making
local level.) and/or it may be able to create
resources through systems of transitional land
ownership and direct involvement in the devel-
I
important strategic (and perhaps at the local opment process.
level, unwelcome) decisions. Similarly, in
waste policy the regional authority is usually There are significant responsibilities at the
I
responsible for identifying sites for waste dis-
posal, and attempting to manage the waste/
recycling problem within the region. Special
local level for environmental policy but this
tends to be undertaken within a stronger na-
tional and regional framework. Nevertheless, it
I
regional organisations have been set up in the is at this level that important trade-offs are
Netherlands to deal with this issue because of
problems that individual local authorities would
being negotiated, especially in relation to loca-
tional decisions made through detailed plans
I
have in finding and agreeing on suitable sites, and regulation and the designation of impor-
an approach which is replicated in other coun-
tries.
tant local sites of environmental value. In trans-
port policy, the local level is mostly restricted to
I
dealing with traffic management, policies to
Strategic transport too, is usually decided at
the regional tier, including the selection of
reduce travel locally (including public transport
policies) and congestion problems in towns.
I
regional nodes and identifying key regional However, it should be noted that the local
routes. There is some cooperation on cross
border transport links (including public trans-
decisions on the location of development will
have implications for movement patterns and I
port) between different countries, as for exam- consequently an environmental impact. .

I
110 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I Trends those places under increasing pressure from
tourism. Another is the significant progress

I The descriptions of the sector policy themes

that follow illustrate the diversity of approaches
that has been made arr the management of
waste and preventing unnecessary damage to
the environment. Certainly there is still sub-
to spatial development, indeed in some cases
I it is difficult to find any common pattern be-
tween the different countries. This is not unex-
stantial progress to be made, but this is widely
recognised and many countries have set am-
bitious targets for recycling and reduction of
pected since the history and experience of
I spatial development problems varies dramati-
cally from one Gountryand region to another, _
waste being generated. However, in the re-
views of policy in this area it is the fiscal and
other regulatory measures which predominate,
as does the context in which policy is formu- and it appears that much less progress has
I lated and implemented. Nevertheless, there
are, at the broadest level, common concerns
been made on the spatial elements of environ-
mental policy, although there are exceptions.
which are finding their way into the spatial

I planning policies of many countries and re-

gions. This section attempts to summarise
In a minority of countries the environmental
agenda has been taken further to fully em-
these common trends. It should be read in
brace the notion of sustainable development,
I conjunction with the discussion of trends in
Section A, which dealt with changes to sys-
tems. This discussion is organised under four
such that the environmental, social and eco-
nomic implications of growth are considered
together. This trend is central to changes in

I themes

• environmental protection and sustainability

spatial planning policy. The sustainability de-
bate is having fundamental effects on policy
making, even in redefining the categories or

I • controlling and balancing growth

themes or problems which policy should ad-
dress. This is particularly so in the way that it
tends to bring disparate policy areas together
• integrating policies
I • partnership.
in a more coordinated approach as explained
below. However, it would be easy to overesti-
mate the impact of this change on practice,
especially at the local level. It would be fair to
I Environmental protection
say that broad objectives of sustainable devel-
opment have been agreed, but the implica-
and sustainability. tions of this for spatial development policy
I The questions of environmental protection and
have yet to be fully worked out. It would appear
that more progress has been made at the
national and regional levels through fiscal and
I sustainability are dominating debates on spa-
tial planning, but with varying effects on policy.
In practice environmental objectives are
other regulatory measures than at the local
level where policy on the distribution and con-
weighed against the need to provide homes, version of land uses is often concentrated.

I jobs and services, and all countries are seek-

ing new ways of addressing spatial develop-
ment so that both sets of objectives can be Controlling and balancing growth

I achieved. The very different environmental and

economic conditions across Europe inevitably A principal thrust of policy which reflects many
lead to varying expressions of environmental of the concerns above is the promotion of

I objectives. One consistent feature is the in-

creasing number of areas designated for spe-
cial protection and more rigorous regulation
'balanced spatial development'. This applies
first at the regional scale where there is a
consistent concern with regional disparities.

I procedures. In many cases there are also

increasing programmes for the active man-
agement of protected areas, especially in
National policies complement EU policy in
attempting to strengthen weak economies,
often through the improvement of physical

I
I Overview of policies 111

I
 I
infrastructure or publicly subsidised property pecially the case in relation to the linkages
I
development. Such policies are of growing between land use, transport and environmen-
significance in depressed industrial and tourist
areas and peripheral rural regions. At another
tal issues, and between heritage, tourism and
economic development issues. Integrated
I
scale there is increasing attention to urban policy responses may draw together different
renewal and the revitalisation of declining ar-
eas within urban areas, including town centres
measures in a more comprehensive package,
say linking taxation, financial incentives and
I
and derelict industrial land. The promotion of controls over the location of new development
reclaiming derelict and vacant urban land has
received added impetus from, and comple-
in order to achieve particular spatial objec-
tives. This comprehensive approach to policy I
ments, environmental protection and urban is also reflected in the selection of areas for
containment objectives. At both scales, re-
gions and individual municipalities are begin-
ning to play a more important role through the
policy and plan coverage, which are increas-
ingly drawn around the issue (such as water
catchment or the coast) rather than around the
I
active promotion of their own assets and at-
tractions to potential investors. 'Place market-
ing' has given rise to increasing competition
administrative boundaries. However, it should
be noted that whilst there is a trend to increase
integration and comprehesiveness of policy,
I
between cities and towns. this is still a general weakness of spatial policy

A further common trend is the strengthening

itself, and of its relation with other policy areas
such as taxation and regulation. -
I
of policy on the control and consolidation of
urban growth. This is being done in recogni-
tion of the great demands for new urban Partnership
I
development arising from projections of
vastly increasing household numbers. There
is a general atrengthening of policy to control
Partnership arrangements to promote spatial
development objectives are becoming much
I
suburban growth and out of centre commer- more widely used. Formal arrangements for
cial development. Whilst the increasing em-
phasis on the containment of urban growth is
linking private, public and voluntary re-
sources in spatial development have been
I
a particular feature of the countries of south- established for many years in some coun-
ern Europe, it is also apparent in northern
countries. Here, containment has been a
traditional feature of spatial policy (although
tries, and their use is now spreading. The
divide between the roles of the public and I
private sectors is being eroded as policy
with varying degrees of strength) and the
trend is for a 'consolidation' of growth in
existing urban centres, involving for example,
makers seek new ways -to realise their ob-
jectives. Partnership involves bringing the I
public, private and voluntary sectors together
increasing densities in some localities, and
coordinating this with better use of existing
and proposed transport infrastructure.
throughout the planning and implementation
stages of a project. It most clearly evident in
those countries that have traditionally relied
I
Integrating policies
on public sector resources to implement
development, where now policy is beginning
to specifically require a private sector contri-
I
bution. Conversely, in some caSE:Swhere the
Increasing concern to ensure the integration
and coordination of policy has led to some
private sector has traditionally dominated im-
plementation, the public sector is being
I
reorganisation of policy making bodies as asked to share the risks, especially in very
described in Section A. It also has a direct
impact on the nature of the policy itself, and
large scale projects. There is still a great deal
of difference between countries where
I
the problem of weak integration were noted at projects are predominantly public sector led,
the beginning of this section. First, the desire
for integration is leading to the generation of
and those where it is predominantly private
sector led, but there are signs of conver- I
more integrated policy 'packages'. This is es- gence, and certainly a sharp increase in the

I
112 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I arrangements set out· in policy for bringing ticipation of the public, in policy formulation
and implementation, with more widespread
public and private resources together. Some

I of the case studies illustrate these linkages

and their relative success.
provision of information on policy and environ-
mental conditions. Needless to say the con-
flicts over policy in the spatial planning field are

I Finally, it should be noted that there is increas-

ing attention being given to enabling the par-
similarly increasing, which is a considerable
challenge for policy makers.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Overview of policies 113

I
I
I
I
I
I
I F Policies
I Introduction cant differences in the scale and distribution of
commercial activity still exist and this is re-
I This section provides a summary of the main
themes of spatial planning policy for a range of
flected in Member States' policies. Policies
described here are linked closely to those on
economic and industrial development.
I sectors. The discussion of policy for each
sector follows a common format, as follows:

• Introduction
I • Context and Issues
Context and issues

Over the last decade there has been signifi-

I • European Union Policies cant growth and change in the commercial

sector. Prior to this time, Member States exhib-
• National Level Policies ited a retail hierarchy of town centres, district

I • Regional Level Policies

centres and neighbourhood centres. The eco-
nomic boom of the 1980s which induced
changes in consumer demand, led to in-

I • Local Level Policies creases in the supply side (sales) as dispos-

able incomes rose, coupled with increased
• Trends demand, facilitated by improved mobility.

I Commercial development
These trends resulted in the spatial concentra-
tion of shops and offices into fewer larger
centres and decentralisation of commercial

I facilities, especially retail premises, to loca-

tions outside traditional centres. This trend is
more pronounced in some countries including
Introduction

I Commercial development includes the types

Belgium, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands
and the UK. Other Member States have ac-
knowledged the sector's potential for signifi~
of activities traditionally associated with town

I centres, primarily office uses and shops. The

commercial sector is one of the most dynamic
sectors of economic development and land
cant change. The 1980s also saw unprec-
edented growth in office development across
Europe, but the ensuing economic recession

I use, and has undergone rapid change over the

last 10-20 years with great shifts in location
patterns in some countries. However, signifi-
coupled with shifts in location patterns to
'out-of-town' business parks has contributed
to increasing vacancy rates in town centres.

I
I Policies 115

I
 I
Those countries where change has been • conservation and promotion of town centre
I
greatest have experience problems of acces- functions;
sibility to urban services in some areas, cou-
pled with congestion in areas of concentra- • increasing the range of facilities in town,
I
tion, and decline in smaller urban centres. district and neighbourhood centres;
The response has often been taken at. the
national level. Detailed regulation regarding • limiting the negative impacts of out of town
I
location and protection of traditional centres' retailing;
commercial facilities, is carried out at the
regional, although more predominantly, at the • sustaining a balance between various com- I
local level. Where the changes in commercial mercial development types in urban areas;
activity location have not been so great, for
example Greece and Italy, there is an ac- • regeneration of declining urban areas and I
knowledgement of the need to adopt policies revitalisation of areas "at risk";
to regulate and guide future development and
improve knowledge of changing patterns of
consumer behaviour, in anticipation of
• reduction in car travel/journeys, through the
concentration of facilities in one location;
I
change.
• restriction of office sprawl in cities. I
In Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy,
European Union policies Germany and the UK, the national govern-
ments have produced policy documents which
I
The creation of the Single European Market provide the framework for detailed regulation
and moves towards greater internationalisa-
tion has had an indirect impact on this sector,
and implementation of commercial develop-
ment at the local level. For example the Act On
I
through increased mobility of goods, services, Location Of Business in Belgium, the Trade
and people. Consumer demand should there-
fore not only be regarded as 'internal', but
Report in Denmark, LEPILEPros (state compre-
hensive development plans) in Germany, com-
I
'external'demand for products, from all Euro- mercial plans in Italy and planning policy guid-
pean countries is of growing importance. Eu-
ropean legislation has also had an indirect
ance notes in the UK.
I
impact on the commercial sector, through
policies to encourage sustainable develop-
ment, the reduction in travel and associated
CO2 levels, and the statutory requirement for
Regional level policies

Compared with other economic sectors, policy

I
the preparation of environmental impact state-
ments for major developments prior to deter-
mination and development.
for commercial development is generally less
important at the regional level, although there
are some exceptions. In Denmark the location
I
of new commercial development is regulated
by the region through regional plans, although
implementation is the remit of the private sec-
I
National level policies • tor. The region's role is one of 'enabler', ensur-

Recognition of the socio-economic impor-

ing the right conditions for development are
achieved. In France policies for commercial
I
tance of the commercial sector has led the development are included in five year regional
majority of countries to adopt policies at the
national level to guide and regulate develop-
plans, which are formulated jointly between the
State and individual regions. In Germany the
I
ment. Despite varying degrees in the evolution system of central places (identified in the
of the commercial sector in each country, there
are a number of common policy themes which
LEP/LEPros)is further developed in regional
plans through locational policies to protect the I
are identifiable. Policies focus on: retail hierarchy, which in turn provide the

I
116 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I framework for the preparation of urban land ted in core commercial and mixed areas iden-
use plans. tified in the BauNVO and incorporated in F and

I Despite a relatively weak legislative framework

to regulate commercial development in Italy,
B-plans. Conversely, in Ireland national policy
has sought to encourage commercial develop-
ment outside the capital region, and has been

I policies have been formulated at the regional

level to control retail development, and in-
clude: the definition and the classification of a
assisted by national government through the
decentralisation of government offices. How-
ever, this is a regional economic development

I land use retail network and formulation of

planning criteria for the location of large distri-
bution centres. The Regioni make representa-
policy, and at the local level office develop-
ment is still zoned in town centres and discour-
aged elsewhere.
tions on distribution matters, with regard to
I large developments at extra-municipal level.
Similarly in Spain, regional legislation has in-
The thrust of policies invariably reflect those at
national level described above with emphasis
stigated a requirement for prior authorisation on maintaining a diversity and concentration of
I by the relevant competent regional govern-
ment, for the location of large commercial
functions in town centres. However, despite
this consistency, the role of local authorities is
centres (e.g. hypermarkets). sometimes constrained by limitations of plan-
I In the UK, regional planning guidance sets out·
ning powers and/or poor knowledge of the
rapidly changing context for retail and office
policy to revitalise the sub-regional economy development. In Finland, Greece and Italy this

I and promote urban regeneration. Regional

business organisations and the government
problem is widely recognised and changes to
the policy framework are underway. Some
departments are the main actors at this level, countries have an additional permit system to

I and promote commercial development

through regional forums and the creation of
regional development companies. Again, the
regulate commercial development, examples
include Belgium, Italy and Sweden.

I emphasis is on directing and containing the

growth of large out of town centres. Trends

I Local level policies

All Member States acknowledge the economic
importance of the commercial sector. Those
countries where changes in locational de-
Many of the problems identified in conjunction mands have been most pronounced for exam-
I with rapid change in the commercial sector in
terms of location and types of facilities, are
ple Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Nether-
lands and the UK, have developed more ex-
identifiable at the local/municipal level, and tensive policies to regulate and guide com-
I consequently the framework and detailed
plans are the main instruments for guiding and
mercial development at all spatial levels.
However, those countries including Finland,
controlling commercial development. Greece, Ireland, Italy and Spain, who are cur-
I Linkages between commercial development
rently experiencing rapid growth and change in
the retail sector, have acknowledged that the
and other policy priorities are well established formulation of a revised framework is of pri-

I in Germany and the Netherlands where na-

tional policy seeks to attract new office devel-
mary importance.

opment to town centres. The 'ABC' location A number of common trends in policy are

I policy in the Netherlands encourages large

travel generators such as office and retail uses
to locate in 'A' locations - which are public
evident including the need to protect and
promote the expansion of retail facilities in
existing town centres, and control out-of-cen-

I transport nodes. The policy is driven by the

objective of reducing the need to travel by car.
In Germany, commercial uses are only permit-
tre commercial developments and their impact
on the vitality and viability of town centres. The
promotion of sustainable development is of

I
I
Policies 117

I
 I
particular importance in shaping policy on the and to promote regional economic develop-
I
location of commercial activities. With the de- ment, often by maximising locational advan-
velopment of out-of-town shopping facilities,
served primarily by car borne customers, it is
tages and linking· economic development,
transport and other policy areas in a coordi-
I
now recognised that the integration of trans- nated strategy. For example, the Netherlands in
port infrastructure with commercial develop-
ment is a priority. By guiding development/
the core area is pursing a policy of capitalising
on its 'gateway' location to Europe, by improv- I
facilities to transport nodes/interchanges or on ing accessibility and strengthening the devel-
public transport routes, the reduction in dis-
tances travelled and the need to travel by
private car can be achieved, and consequently
opment of its two main ports - Schipol and
Europort (Rotterdam). Greece, however,is con-
cerned about its geographical isolation from
I
assist in achieving sustainable development. the rest of the Community and is currently
promoting cross border transport networks as
part of economic development objectives.
I
Economic development
All Member States are concerned about high
levels of unemployment and particularly, con-
I
centration of high unemployment in areas un-
Introduction dergoing structural changes in their regional or
local economies. Reconversion of areas suf-
I
Economic development policy includes finan- fering from industrial decline and the revitalisa-
cial and other incentives to businesses and
communities to establish and promote em-
tion and restructuring of rural economies are
important policy objectives with spatial impli-
I
ployment opportunities; special designations cations. Policies seeking to direct or attract
for areas in particular need, training provision
and many other types of assistance. Economic
development to particular regions or areas
experiencing high unemployment and the I
development policies respond to social and growth of 'location marketing' to encourage
economic disparities, especially the concen-
tration of high unemployment and economic
decline in cities and rural areas resulting from
inward investment as well as indigenous
growth are common aspects of economic
development policy. Other objectives which
I
recession and economic restructuring. These
policies often do not have a spatial compo-
nent, but will invariably have an indirect spatial
economic development policies seek to ad-
dress are the improvement of infrastructure
and other physical conditions to encourage
I
impact. Improving employment opportunities investment and economic growth; the encour-
is a priority in all Member States, at least for
part of their territory. Policies described here
agement and support of small and medium
size firms; the promotion of sustainable eco-
I
link closely with those for industrial develop- nomic development and the need to maintain
ment and commercial development. a productive manufacturing sector, whilst ac-
commodating growth in service sector em-
I
ployment.
Context and issues I
The context for economic development policies European Union policies
relates to the economic disparities which exist
not only between Member States, but also The creation of the Single European Market
I
within their borders. Disparities across the EU and moves towards monetary union are in-
between core areas (such as France, Germany
and Netherlands) and the peripheral areas
tended to increase competitiveness and
thereby have a direct impact on economic
I
(such as southern Italy, northern and eastern development in all countries. The establish-
Finland, Greece, Portugal and Spain) have led
to a need to promote integration across bor-
ders through the Trans-European Networks
ment of social and economic cohesion of the
regions is a central objective of the European
Union. It implies actions to reduce disparities
I
I
118 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I in income and development between regions • relaxation of national controls and regula-
over the long term. tion, and the provision of new instruments •

I EU policies to achieve these objectives in-

and powers which can be used at the local
level;
clude the application of the Community's

I Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund to

support major transport, economic, environ-
mental and employment projects and the use
• infrastructure and property development;

• promotion and marketing for inward invest-

I of the many and varied Community initiatives.

The latter are special financial instruments
which support the aims of the Structural
ment.

National level agencies coordinate the distri-

Funds but which are targeted on particular bution of funding for economic development
I industrial sectors, areas undergoing industrial
change, rural areas and cross-border activi-
including EU funds. For example, the Gemein-
schafsaufgaben Ooint tasks) in Germany and
ties. The Commission's White Paper 'Growth the Austrian Research and Advisory Company
I Competitiveness, Employment', set out an
agreed plan of action to achieve a reduction
(OSB). Such agencies promote new employ-
ment opportunities, the location of new busi-
in unemployment. This included priority for nesses, the support of small and medium
I implementation of trans-European networks
in energy, transport and information technol-
sized enterprises, and pursue policies of pro-
motion and marketing, coordinating different
ogy and the encouragement of sustainable actors to direct and concentrate investment

I development. where it is most needed. These may be re-

gions, growth poles, industrial or rural areas.
Examples of financial incentives for industry to

I National level policies

relocate or grow, and the promotion of private
- public partnerships can be found in many
countries. Examples of direct public invest-
National policy in many sectors will have an
I effect on economic development. Indeed, gen-
eral economic policy of central government will
ment are the policies to relocate public sector
services pursued in France and Sweden where
the beneficiaries are rural areas where there is
have fundamental implications for economic high unemployment.
I performance in particular locations. All coun-
tries have policies to create favourable busi-
Most countries have policies to create or
ness conditions for commercial enterprises as
improve transport infrastructure networks to
I a basis to increase competitiveness and cre-
ate employment. The country volumes identify
improve accessibility for both goods and
people whilst some countries have specific
aspects of national policy which have particu-
location policies to encourage sustainable
I lar importance for the spatial distribution of
economic development. Of particular note
here are measures with spatial implications
economic growth with regard to reducing
travel and restricting car use, such as in the
Netherlands, Ireland and the UK. At the
which are specifically intended to address
I economic development. Such measures in-
clude:
national level there are also policies aimed at
improving the general infrastructure neces-
sary for successful economic development

I • special national agencies with funding and

powers for use in areas of decline;
such as telecommunications, energy, educa-
tion and health facilities.

I • direct public investment or relocation of

publicly funded activities;
As well as acting directly, national govern-
ments have an important role in establishing
the framework of legislation and policy which
can be employed by others. There are nu-
I • aid and incentives to private sector investors
and partnership arrangements;
merous examples where national govern-
ments have reduced or amended controls to

I
Policies 119
I
 I
provide incentives and/or provided new in- In some countries, special development agen-
I
struments through legislation to be employed cies are set up, for example, in Germany each
in . pursuit of economic development objec-
tives by national government itself, by special
of the Lander have their own state develop-
ment company (Landesentwickfungsgel/schaft
I
agencies or by regional and local authorities. - LEG) which acquire or take over land (often
Examples of special instruments include the
zone d'amenagement concerte (ZACs) in
disused industrial land) for the purpose of
developing it for housing, industrial and com-
I
France, areas of economic promotion (ZPEs) mercial uses. The LEGs undertake the project
and industrialised areas in decline (ZIDs) in
Spain, and enterprise zones (Els) and sim-
planning, infrastructure, development, man-
agement and even sometimes construction of I
plified planning zones (SPZs) in the UK. the buildings for sale or rent.
These instruments are employed by local
authorities sometimes in partnership with I
central government and other agencies, and
effectively amend the regulation regime and/
or provide for special incentives within speci-
fied areas.
Local level policies

Within Member States, policies at the local

I
level will vary from one locality to another
depending on the prevailing economic con-
ditions. Where the need for jobs is para-
I
Regional level policies

It is generally at the regional level that the

mount, local authorities and other agencies
have taken an increasingly active role in
economic development. Only in a few coun-
I
linkage between economic development tries is there no or a limited role for local
policy and spatial development is most evi-
dent. This may be established through re-
authorities to promote economic develop-
ment, such as Greece (where it is all done .
I
gional planning instruments. which set out by the Ministry) or in Netherlands and France
social and economic objectives and their
spatial expression. (See Section B for types
where the individual municipalities or com-
munes are generally too small to undertake
I
of instruments at this level). Such instruments these activities. In these circumstances they
are often prepared within the framework of
national/regional policy, and national funding
may cooperate to form groupings to achieve
economic development objectives, for exam-
I
support for regional initiatives will be subject ple through contrats de ville in France which
to agreements between national and regional
administration. This is most clearly expressed
are entered into by the state with groups of
communes to ensure the implementation of
I
in the French contrat de plan which sets out urban policy.
the funding sources for a mutually agreed
contract between the state and region on Local authorities in many countries including
I
implementation programmes for economic Denmark, Finland, Spain and Sweden contrib-
development, housing, transport and water. ute to the improvement of basic conditions as
a framework for economic development
I
In countries with federal or regionalised sys- through policies to improve local infrastruc-
tems such as Austria, Belgium, France, Ger-
many and Spain, there are policies with spatial
ture, particularly roads, the environment and
water. or other public utilities. In addition, in
I
implications to promote economic develop- some countries, local authorities take a more
ment through improving regional infrastruc-
ture, acquiring and providing land, particularly
direct role by acquiring land and providing
workspaces as do the Gemeinde in Germany. I
for industrial development, and through mar- Subsidies and incentives to firms at the local
keting and promotional activities to attract
inward investment to particular locations with
regional aid and incentives.
level can also be achieved by exempting com-
panies from local tax in special zones, as in I
France and in the UK.

I
120 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I Local enterprise initiatives also exist to create Environmental management
employment, for example in Ireland where

I local area based partnerships are established

to encourage new enterprises, undertake en-
Introduction
vironmental and infrastructure improvements Environmental policy includes a very wide
I and provide training initiatives. Area based
partnerships between the public and private
range of spatial, fiscal and other measures to
address the global, regional and local impacts
sectors to achieve economic regeneration, of global warming, acidification of the environ-

I particularly in cities, is characteristic of several

countries inclu_ding the UK through its City
ment, air and noise pollution, contamination of
groundwater, pollution of land, loss of biodiver-
Challenge programme. sity and degradation of urban and rural envi-

I Policies to attract inward investment for eco-

ronments. All Member States give a high pri-
ority to protecting the environment, but some,
for example Denmark, Finland, the Nether-
nomic growth and job creation through 'place
I marketing' by local authorities or joint agencies
are commonplace in many countries. The ad-
lands, Sweden, Ireland, Spain and the UK,
have made considerable progress in widening
policy beyond protection of natural features to
vantages of particular locations and their spe-
embrace more fully a wider concept of sustain-
I cial attributes for particular economic sectors
are analysed, often resulting in competition
able development. These policies link closely
with those for waste management and pollu-
between different localities trying to attract the tion and natural resources.
I same investment. This is usually provided
alongside financial advice and support to
small and medium size enterprises through Context and issues
I grants, information services and other means,
such as property development. . It is now recognised that environmental policy
whether at a national, regional or local level,

I Trends
has very clear transnational and global impli-
cations. The national and local policies are
increasingly reflecting, being shaped and

I Constraints on public expenditure are stimulat-

ing a shift from direct support to enabling
themselves shaping transnational agreements •
and protocols. At the global level the Earth
Summit has been important in raising aware-
ness, but equally the policies, programmes,
I investment from the private sector and public-
private partnerships particularly at the local
level. Place or location marketing to attract
legislation and initiatives of the EU are ac-
knowledged as an important contact for more
localised decision making. It is also important
I inward investment has been a key feature
although policies aimed at encouraging more
indigenous growth are emerging. A more mar-
to remember that many Member States them-
selves have an important role in shaping Eu-
ropean and global policies. Across the Mem-
I ket-led approach is also becoming evident,
moving away from the more direct public
intervention approach to attract businesses to
ber States of the European Union there are a
number of different issues that keep re-emerg-
ing and include:

I specific locations. Policies aimed at encourag-

ing specialisation and supporting specific sec-
tors in localities are also emerging. Finally,
• ensuring that environmental considerations
are explicitly integrated into all areas of
decision making;
I there is a recognition that employment and
economic growth should be sustainable. Spe-
cific location policies to encourage develop-
• agreeing basic minimum standards of pol-
lution control;
ment in town centres, inner cities and at public
I transport nodes rather than green field sites
are being adopted.
• ensuring that mechanisms are in place to
preserve and manage important natural or

I
Policies
I 121
 I
cultural environments from the direct or in- other directives are designed to protect sensi-
I
direct effects of development; tive, fragile and important sites designated as

• ensuring that sufficient attention is given to

special protection areas (SPAs) and special
areas of conservation (SACs). There are a I
monitoring the environmental effects of myriad of European environmental policy ini-
policy and thereby enable judgements to be
made as to whether progress is being made
tiatives designed to limit the amount of pollu-
tion arising from various activities, which may I
towards sustainable development. have implications for spatial planning policy.
Such measures can create demand for new
industrial premises as particularly polluting ac-
tivities are closed down (also creating potential
I
European Union policies

The influence of the European Union is shap-

ing national, regional and local environmental
land contamination problems). Requirements
on new proposals to comply with certain emis-
sion standards may be part of the process of
I
seeking permission to develop.
policy in all Member States is significant. Even
in those States which have more recently
joined the EU, great stress was placed on the EU financial instruments are being widely used
I
fact that either their existing environmental to affect environmental policies with three
policies and programmes complied with Euro-
pean wide principles and regulations, or that
broad types of financial assistance available.
In Germany, Objective 1 and 2 funding is being
I
only minor adjustments to national policy were used to help reclaim contaminated land for
needed with accession. other uses. In several Mediterranean countries
Cohesion Fund finance is being used to pro-
I
EU environmental programmes affects spatial vide and/or upgrade basic sewerage treat-
planning policy in a number of direct and
indirect ways. The EU's Fifth Action Pro-
ment plants, hence reducing pollution into
hydrological systems. Elsewhere EU funding is I
gramme i 993-2000, sets out the broad envi- being used to support programmes to meas-
ronmental agenda and framework for EU en-
vironmental initiatives until the end of the dec-
ure the quality and character of the existing
natural environment and establish monitoring
systems. In Ireland LIFE funding is being used
I
ade. Its main goals are to improve the imple-
mentation and enforcement of environmental
regulations, integrate environmental policy into
all areas of EU policy and encourage the
to assess nature conservation sites with the
potential to be designated sites of scientific
interest. In Greece, EU funding is being used
I
public and private sectors and the general to gather basic information regarding the state
public to consider the environmental implica-
tions of their actions more seriously. Many of
of the natural environment and the threats that
it is facing. Similar basic monitoring of fragile
I
these aims have implications for spatial policy, ecosystems supported by EU funding is being
for example the 1985 Environmental Impact
Assessment Directive required the environ-
undertaken in Portugal. And many more exam-
ples could be cited.
I
mental implications of large scale projects to
be explicitly and systematically considered in
the process of determining whether develop-
Notwithstanding the importance that EU policy
has in shaping national approaches towards
I
ment should be permitted. Furthermore, envi- the environment it is necessary to emphasis
ronmental monitoring and reporting which is
being encouraged through the Fifth Action
that many of these initiatives reflect national
concerns. I
Programme is likely to be of growing impor-
tance in strategic spatial planning and deci-
sion making. National level policies I
Some environmental directives have a direct
impact on spatial planning policy. The 1985
EIA directive is well know in the respect, but
With the exception of Belgium, where the
nation state has only limited competence to
define environmental standards, environmen-
I
I
i22 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I tal legislation and policy is strong at the •na- follow. Probably the most well known approach
tional level. In all circumstances these frame- of this type has been developed by the Dutch,

I works are strongly shaped by EU legislation

and policies.
with their National Environmental Policy Plan,
the second of which was published in 1993.
This plan has a number of inter-related func-

I The co-ordination of environmental policy

through enabling legislation and setting up the
institutional framework are major concerns at
tions. It is intended to increase general aware-
ness and responsibility towards the environ-
ment, and to set broad objectives for other

I national level. Legislation is often dispersed in

a range of acts, with different agencies respon-
sible for implementation and difficulties expe-
agencies and organisations to follow, particu-
larly in order to minimise environmental im-
pacts. This is achieved by pursuing a self
rienced in sectoral integration. Such an ap-
I proach characterises the Italian situation,
where until recently environmental legislation
regulatory approach and setting targets and
principles about what needs to be achieved,
why and how. The main aim is therefore to set
was a marginal concern, although by 1992
I 80% of the relevant EU environmental legisla-
tion had been enacted. The trend across Eu-
a national policy framework which can only be
implemented through the actions of others.
rope as in Italy, is to develop a more integrated
I approach to environmental policy. This can
take many different forms. At the Cabinet level
A similar national policy framework has been
adopted by amongst others Ireland, who have
the creation of a ministry explicably responsi- produced an EnvironmentalAction Programme

I ble for the environment reflects this concern.

For example in Finland the Minister of Environ-
(1990) in addition to there being a strong envi-
ronmental dimension ih their NationalDevelop-
ment was established in 1983. In France envi- ment Plan 1994-9. In Denmark long term goals

I ronment became a governmental sector in its

own right with the creation of a Ministre.de
/'Environmentin 1992, who presides over the
for spatial planning with respect to the environ-
mental, are expressed in 'Denmark Towards the
year 2018'. In Finland environmental concerns

I Comite lnterministerielde /'Environment.

Elsewhere interdisciplinary .. and sectoral

are reflected in the Finnish Environmental Pro-
gramme 2005. In Portugal the National Plan
prepared in 1994 has, as one of its key goals,

I groups have been established to consider

environmental matters at the national level. In
Ireland the 'Green 2000 Advisory Group' iden-
the prevention of environment degradation and
the recovery of areas that are experiencing
harmful environmental effects. In Italy work has
tified the key issues facing the national envi-
I ronment. In the Netherlands the actions of
government departments are closely co-ordi-
started in the MinistrydefAmbienteto produce a
10 year environmental action plan. Whilst the
planning system has a role to play in achieving
nated in an attempt to achieve horizontal inte-
I gration of policy. Private, voluntary and other
interest groups' opinions are actively sought
targets an_dobjectives, there is a realisation that
other actions including environmental taxes
and greater individual and .organisational re-
and encouraged (including the provincial and

I municipal authorities) in an attempt to produce

policy that has widespread support. In the
sponsibility are necessary.

In. some countries the issue of sustainable

United Kingdom the Round Tableon Sustain-

I able Development comprising of a cross-sec-

tion of the national community, acts as an
important advisory body on government
development is being considered at the na-
tional level. Ireland for example is working on a
National SustainabilityStrategy and the notion

I policy.

Several countries commented upon the impor-

of sustainability indicators. Agenda 21 is ac-
tively being ·pursued in Denmark, Sweden the
UK and, in embryonic form in Portugal. The UK

I tance of national policy and programming

statements that provide a set of objectives,
targets and principles for other agencies to
government has adopted a similar perspective
in number of national policy documents includ-
ing 'Our Common Inheritance (1990)' and

I
Policies
I 123
 I
'Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy Landschaftsprogramm (landscape pro-
I
(1994)'. Not only have principles and objec- gramme) which establishes objectives for na-
tives been set, but annual monitoring reports
have been produced to indicate how govern-
ture and countryside protection as well as
designating Regionale Grunzuge (regional
I
ment has been 'greening' its advice and guid- green spaces), Wasserschutzgebiete (water
ance and what its future priorities are. Spain
has a national strategy prepared in 1995 for
protection areas) and agricultural and forestry
priority areas. These have to be taken into I
conseNation and sustainable land use for account at the Gemeinde level. In Finland,
ecological diversity. regional plans for nature conseNation are pre-
pared by regional councils. I
For many countries environmental degradation
is seen as a major threat to fragile ecosystems
and landscape areas of national significance.
The general policy response across Europe is
In some countries the regions are also respon-
sible for designating and expanding areas of
regional significance. In France there are cur-
I
to strengthen and extend the areas designated
for protection, and those which are significant
from a national and international perspective in
rently some 27 regional parks which cover
parts of 21 regions and 49 departements. A
further 16 regional parks are under considera-
I
terms of nature conseNation, landscape, eco- tion, 6 of which are expected to be approved
logical or recreational value. The threat is ably
illustrated by Greece which boasts some 400
during 1995. I
ecosystems of national importance, which are Despite attempts at integration between policy
fragile and some 30% of these under threat,
with many others suffering gradual degrada-
areas there is still considerable concerns as to
whether this is fully effective. In theNetherlands,
I
tion. In Austria there is increasing sensitivity to an interesting exper.iment is being attempted
the need to protect man made and natural
landscapes. Already three national parks exist
through a process of consensus building to
create strategies which fully integrate environ- I
and a further three are being proposed. In mental and spatial planning policies. This inte-
Portugal a National Network of Protected Areas,
including the definition of National Ecological
grated plan will be eventually be incorporated
. into spatial planning documents and reflected I
Reserves are important in framing regional and in decision making. Eleven areas (ROMs) have
local plans. Similarly in mainland France there
are currently seven national parks and a further
two proposals are being considered as well as
been designated for this experimental ap-
proach and the effects of this policy are consid-
ered more fully in the case studies section.
I
the designation of two projects that have inter-
national conseNation area significance.
Local level policies
I
Regional level policies It is at the local level that the implications of
environmental policy are most acutely felt. In
I
At the regional level one of the key elements of most cases local policies and decisions need
policy is to integrate environmental considera-
tions into the relevant plan making frame-
to take into account higher level designations.
Sometimes local authorities can produce their
I
works. For example, in Portugal regional plans own plans. In Germany the Gemeinde can
need to reflect the importance of national
conseNation areas (RENs) in developing a
produce a Landschaftplan (local landscape
plan) and Grunordnungsplan (landscape con-
I
strategy for the development of the region. trol plans) which in some Lander are merely
Similarly Denmark's counties, Italy's regioni
and Belgium's regions have an important role
advisory though elsewhere may contain bind-
ing provisions so long as they do not conflict
I
in developing integrated regional sectoral pro- with the 8-plan for the area. Some local au-
grammes where the plan making process
takes due account of environmental consid-
thorities also have an important environmental
protection role through the designation of local I
erations. In Germany the Lander produce a sites or areas for protection.

I
124 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I Trends Kingdom, with the 1990 EnvironmentalProtec-
tionAct and the 1995EnvironmentAct. The latter
I Throughout the EU there is a growing aware-.
ness of the need to consider fully the environ-
consolidates many of the environmental pro-
tection functions into a single government
mental implications of decision making. This agency, the EnvironmentAgency.

I has clear implications for spatial planning.

Inevitably the concerns regarding environmen- Many reductions of harmful environmental ef-
fects of industrial and urbanisation process,
tal degradation require a more comprehensive

I and integrated approach which goes beyond

the spatial planning system. National govern-
ments are increasingly providing a national
have been achieved through technological so-
lutions. In Southern Europe water pollution is of
major concern and new treatment plants partly

I framework and policies that take greater ac-

count of the environment. Within these frame-
works the need for greater integration between
funded by the EU should help improve the
situation. Elsewhere there is a growing ten-
dency to use financial instruments to protect
the environment, and reduce unnecessary
I sectors particularly spatial planning and envi-
ronmental policy is highlighted. This is an
objective in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden
waste. There is growing concern regarding the
quality of fragile ecosystems with a tendency
amongst others. Furthermore there is a grow- to extend and strengthen those areas desig-
I ing realisation for the need to monitor and
. report on environmental impacts. Part of this
nated for protection. Environmental monitoring
and making this information publicly available
response reflects growing national awareness is of growing importance. This will not only help

I of environmental matters coupled with the

international agreements reached at the Earth
to improve local awareness but may help
facilitate local action through Agenda 21.
Summit, and the EU policies and programmes.

I At the national level this coordinating approach

Finally, environmental planning is often difficult
to carry out coherently within national regional
or local administrative boundaries. The need
manifests itself through legislation which. is

I largely binding and increasingly through a se-

ries of policy statements. In some countries
for consensus and co-operation is increasingly
being recognised with planning strategies be-
ing developed for functional areas, particularly
environmental legislation has a relatively long
water basin catchment areas, and also on a
I history. In Sweden comprehensive legislation to
protect the natural environment dates from
1964. In some countries, environmental legisla-
transnational basis for example the Baltic Sea
Region in northern Europe. Environmentalism
is firmly on the political agenda at all levels of
I tion has tended to be accommodated in a
series of discrete and dispersed pieces of leg-
islation, which is the case in Spain and Italy.
governance partly because of the growing
importance of the environmental lobby across
. the whole of Europe. Planning has an impor-
I One noticeable trend is an attempt to consoli-
date these ad hoc regulations, which are often
necessary to comply with EU regulations and
tant role to play in promoting sustainable de-
velopment and minimising environmental deg-
directives into a consolidated integrating act. In radation with increasing emphasis being

I Denmark the Planning Act, the Natural Protec-

tion Act and the Environmental Protection Act all
placed on integrating environmental and spa-
tial planning policies, particularly at the local
have the same common objective of 'protecting level.

I the country's, nature and environment so that

sustainable development is secured'. The Fin-
Heritage
nish legislation· mentions similar goals. Else-

I where consolidation of environmental legisla-

tion into a smaller number of integrating acts
promoting the concept of integrated pollution Introduction

I control and the establishment of a single envi-

ronmental protection agency is gaining mo-
mentum. This is certainly the case in the United
Heritage policy includes measures to protect
and enhance buildi~gs and sites of particular

I
I Policies 125

I
 I
archaeological, historic or architectural merit. heritage policy is for the Member States but
I
The threat to the EU's built heritage from exchanges of experience and promoting good
further urban development, the difficulties of
funding preservation and conservation and the
practice and innovation have been supported
through a number of EU programmes such as
.I
value of EU funding, are widely acknowledged. URBAN and the programme for the Conserva-
There is some consistency in the general
approach of Member States to valuing and
tion of European Heritage.
I
protecting important heritage, but with varia-
tion in detailed implementation. Heritage
policy is often linked with other measures, _National level policies I
including those on economic development,
leisure and tourism, and environmental protec-
tion.
In many countries, there is considerable public
investment in building and monuments of na-
tional significance. Budgets for restoration of
I
Context and issues
important properties and sites have been in-
creasing although funding is not able to keep
pace with the increase in demand. Nearly all
I
countries have a national scheme which lists
All Member States acknowledge the increas-
ing importance of public pressure for the pres-
ervation and conservation of the built environ-
or classifies buildings, sites or monuments
which are worthy of preservation. Details of
I
ment, and the rejection of comprehensive re- their characteristic features are recorded.
development of urban areas that took place in
the 1960s and 1970s. The built heritage is also
There has, however, been increasing recogni-
tion in countries such as Belgium, Germany,
I
now recognised as an important component in Finland and the Netherlands that it is not just
policies for economic development, tourism
and sustainability. This has led in many coun-
buildings which require special protection but
also the environs in which they are set. The
I
tries to an overwhelming increase in the map- wider geographical areas worthy of preserva-
ping, listing and classification of buildings,
monuments or sites which are deemed to be
tion and protection are extended to town-
scapes (Belgium, Germany) and landscapes
(Finland) and to conservation areas (Germany,
I
worthy of preservation. But it has also led to
the awareness that resources, particularly pub-
lic resources cannot keep pace with this de-
mand. As a result many countries are actively
Ireland and the UK). Some historic areas are
listed as world heritage sites. I
looking at a variety of mechanisms such as tax
concessions, incentives and subsidies in order
to encourage private investment in the repair
The preservation of heritage is increasingly
seen in several Member States as part of an
overall package of urban or village renewal, for
I
and maintenance of buildings worthy of pres-
ervation.
example in Austria, Netherlands and in the
eastern Lander in Germany. Also there is ac-
knowledgement of the contribution that herit-
I
age can make to economic enhancement and
European Union policies a very strong link between heritage and tour-
ism policies in countries such as Greece and
I
Article 28 of the Treaty on European Union Ireland. A number of countries are investigating
encourages cooperation among Member
States and the provision of EU support for the
how private resources can be utilised. For
example, repair work on listed buildings by
I
conservation of cultural heritage of European private owners is tax deductible in the Brussels
significance. The protection and enhancement
of the historical heritage of cities was a key
Region in Belgium; in Ireland there are tax
concessions for private owners' works on
I
area for action in the •Green Paper on the listed monuments on condition that public
Urban Environment (Com (90)218). Its inter-
related role in improving the urban environ-
access is allowed; and in Germany tax incen-
tives and public subsidies are available for I
ment was also recognised. Responsibility for private owners. Both Italy and Finland are

I
126 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I-
I looking at tax incentives for repairs by private scapes and landscapes and also policies
owners. which apply to adjacent buildings to those

I which are listed are very common throughout

Member States. Integration of heritage policy
with other economic and tourism objectives is
Regional level policies

I The federal states of Belgium and Germany

have responsibilities for approval of proposals
also increasing.·

The refurbishment and renovation of residen-

I for alterations, repairs and changes of use to

listed buildings and monuments. Germany
also provides financial aid to owners and to
tial areas and town centres has been a key
feature in the 1990s and the use of private
investment in partnership with public funds is
local authorities. Elsewhere, the national and becoming more widespread. Responsibility for
I local levels play the main roles in heritage
policy formulation and implementation.
heritage policy and implementation is also
being decentralised in two ways. First, there is
a decentralisation of roles, responsibilities and
I Local level policies
financial aid from the national level to the
regional level as in Spain, or local level as in
the Netherlands. Second, there is a decentrali-
I The approach to heritage policies at the local
level varies considerably across the European
sation trend away from concentration of public
resources for heritage in the main cities to
Union. In Belgium the municipalities have an more provincial areas and medium size towns

I extremely limited role as the functions are

undertaken at the regional level, but in Ireland
and cities as in France and Germany. The
increase in the role of voluntary organisations
and Sweden most of the implementation con- and local consultative groups and associa-

I cerned with heritage policies takes place at the

local level.
tions has been noted particularly in countries
which have decentralised responsil;:>ilitiesto
the more local level.

I In addition to the national listings of buildings/

monuments, municipalities can also identify
and classify buildings and sites which are Housin.g
I worthy of protection and preservation but
which are of local significance, for example in
Finland, Germany, Portugal, Spain and the UK.
Building permits which are determined at the Introduction
I local level for changes in areas worthy of
protection usually.have to go to special com- • Housing policies include both explicit spatial
mittees (e.g. Greece) or to a higher tier of policy and programmes, and other measures
I authority (e.g. Belgium) for approval. Munici-
palities in Finland, Germany, Ireland and the
intended to influence the construction of new
housing in favoured locations, manage exist-
UK identify large areas of urban fabric which ing stock efficiently, improve the quality of
I have a special character and appearance wor-
thy of conservation where special policies re-
housing in areas of decline, provide changes
in the balance of housing tenure; and to meet
garding demolition, alterations and develop- specific cases of housing need. All Member

I ment apply. States have extensive policy related to housing

but they sometimes pursue very different ob-
jectives, and the co~ordination of spatial, fiscal

I Trends

One of the most significant trends is the in-

and other measures is seldom addressed.
National government is mostly concerned with
fiscal incentives such as tax relief and subsi-

I creasing recognition of the importance of the

setting for historic buildings for conservation.
Policies for conservation areas, special town-
dies, whereas the location of housing is mostly
the responsibility of local authorities. Policies
described here are often closely linked to other

I
Policies
I 127

I
 I
policy relating to economic development and containing urban sprawl and Belgium the
I
urban growth. problem of ribbon development, and a number
of States focus on the need for urban renewal
and slum clearance in inner city areas. Immi- I
Context and issues gration and internal migration has led to further

Demand for new housing is increasing across

demand for housing in some countries, espe-
cially Germany, and the repatriation of citizens I
most of the EU. In some Member States, has been important in Greece.
including Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland
and the UK this is mostly a problem of declin-
European Union policies
I
ing household size and an increase in the
elderly population. Increasing second home
ownership is also an important factor, espe-
cially in Austria and Luxembourg. In Greece,
The EU is not seen to have a significant impact
on either fiscal or spatial policies for housing,
I
although some structural funding has been
Italy, Portugal, and the eastern Lander of Ger-
many there are significant housing problems
with, in some cases, extensive homelessness
used for related projects. I
and/or dwellings below acceptable standards.
In Greece and Italy, Portugal and Spain previ-
ous unauthorised building of homes has left a
National level policies I
legacy of urban areas poorly seNed by physi- There are few examples of clear spatial hous-
cal and social infrastructure, although signifi-
cant progress has been made on addressing
ing policy at national level. National housing
policy is usually concentrated on setting the
I
these problems. legal framework for policy making at regional

The rate of new housing development is

and local level (in some cases with constitu-
tional rights established in relation to housing
I
strongly affected by economic conditions and as in Greece and Spain); setting general goals
fiscal policies, especially the availability of
credit for house purchase. Thus fiscal policy
and targets for total housing provision; and
creating a particular tenure balance through I
often takes precedence in national policy. The • tax incentives and subsidies. Promotion of
significance of spatial planning policy fm hous-
ing and its co-ordination with fiscal policy
varies. The share of housing in different ten-
owner occupation is a primary policy objective
. in the majority of Member States, especially
where it is currently low, for example in Ger-
I
ures and established approaches to housing
provision and funding, constrain current poli-
cies. For example, Germany has a relatively
many and Italy.

Deregulation and 'privatisation' are common

I
low level of owner occupation (less than 10%
in the eastern Lander, whereas Ireland has a
very high level, almost 80%). German poiicy is
features of housing policy. In the northern
Member States, public sector inteNention and
expenditure on housing provision is being
I
concentrated on the promotion of owner occu- reduced. This has had a major impact on the
pation, Ireland's on the promotion of the rented
sector. However, like many other Member
provision of housing, notably in Sweden where
the number of new dwellings constructed in
I
States, both are promoting a more balanced 1995 is less than a quarter of the 1990 figure.
provision in housing tenure and a reduced role
for direct provision from the public sector.
In the southern Member States the magnitude
of the housing problem often requires a public
I
sector lead, but this is often linked to relaxation
Physical conditions, including existing spatial
settlement structure, the distribution of hous-
of rent controls in favour of a more free market
approach, seeking to encourage a more re- I
ing types, and the condition of property are sponsive and flexible housing market. How-
obviously important in shaping policy. The
perception of the spatial problem varies, for
example, Finland identifies the problem of
ever, national policies to counteract social
segregation and promote social mix are being
. promoted, for example in France and Ireland.
I
I
128 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I There is much less attention to the spatial Local level policies
distribution of new housing at this level, al-

I though government may set important priori-

ties for particular types of location for new
This is the level where questions about the
spatial distribution of new housing are mostly
considered. Local authorities have the primary
housing and/or priorities for action, as in Italy

I and the UK. There are exceptions in northern

Europe, especially in Denmark and the Neth-
erlands, where there are very explicit national
responsibility for identifying and designating
land for housing, and formulating policies to
guide the development of those areas. Policies

I policies on housing location. Where national

policy addresses the spatial question it is
directed at the containment of urban areas and
will include controlling the location and density
of development (often with an emphasis on
increasing the densities of existing urban ar-
eas); the containment of settlements, the pro-
I the reuse of vacant urban land.

National government usually has responsibility

tection of areas of special environmental qual-
ity; and the promotion of urban renewal and
renovation of property where there is an age-
I for allocating funds for special measures, es-
pecially urban renewal and property renova-
tion. This is a concern across Europe and has
ing housing stock.

Implementation is also generally controlled at

I been particularly successful in Ireland where a
combination of fiscal and spatial policy meas-
ures at the national level has made a major
the local level (although national bodies have
played an important role in Greece and Portu-
gal). State led housing development has been

I contribution to the provision of many new

dwellings within the urban area. Central gov-
ernment also usually sets out national stand-
the norm in some countries, with local authori-
ties playing an important role in the provision
of housing land by acquisition and selling on to
ards for existing housing and new construc-
I tion. In the southern Member States the need
to ensure that more houses meet such stand-
public companies, the private sector or other
agencies (as in Austria). This may include
infrastructure provision and 'urbanisation
ards is a major priority.
I works' funded by land transactions (e.g. Ger-
many); or even construction of homes by the
state (e.g. in Finland and the Netherlands).

I Regional level policies

In other Member States such as France,
Greece, Spain and the UK implementation has
Regional housing policy· is particularly impor- been primarily through private and independ-
I tant in the federal States of Austria and Ger-
many, where the Lander adopt their own spa-
ent sectors, although public sector regulation
of location and scale of development has been
tial and fiscal policies. In Belgium the regions important, particularly in the UK. State aid has
I have complete autonomy in housing policy.
Elsewhere the.regional organisation of govern-
ment is responsible for the distribution of re-
been concentrated on providing housing for
those who are unable to buy on the open
market.

I sources to local authorities, as in Italy.

One important example of spatial policy at the Trends

I regional level is the urban-rural zoning prac-

tised in Denmark which has a significant im-
pact on the location of new housing. In the UK,
A distinct trend for less state intervention and
provision of housing is evident in the majority

I 'green belt' policy has prevented urban sprawl

at the regional and local level. Spain and the
UK adopt housing programmes and a broad
of Member States, with more emphasis being
placed upon private sector funding and imple-
mentation, with special agencies and co-op-

I strategy at the regional level which includes

targets for the construction of new dwellings in
different parts of the region.
eratives being set-up for the promotion of
social housing. In some Member States this is
argued on the basis that the provision of

I
I Policies 129

I
 I
housing is no longer a major problem, or a changing locational requirements of industry.
I
priority for state spending. The increasing mar- This section links closely with that on eco-
ket orientation of housing policy is also re-
flected in the relaxation of rent controls, for
nomic development, and also commercial de-
velopment.
I
example in Finland, Germany, Italy and Spain.
Also, for those countries with high owner oc-
cupation rates there is a general reduction of Context and issues
I
tax relief, and more attention to encouraging
the private rented sector. The key issue for all Member States is the
creation of an. efficient and productive indus-
I
In the northern Member States, there are signs trial sector to improve competitiveness and
of a shifting emphasis from new housing pro-
vision to renewal, although the provision of
new housing is still a problem in almost all
participate effectively in the Single Market.
Regional disparities within countries need to I
be addressed although in countries such as
countries. Spatial policies concentrate on con-
tinuing to restrict urban sprawl accompanied
by intensification of land use in existing built up
Denmark this is not a key issue. Many Member
States are faced with the problem of the
structural adaptation of older industrial areas
I
areas with smaller mixed developments on
infill sites. In the southern Member States and
Belgium where control has not been so rigor-
and are utilising EU Structural Funds to
achieve their renewal strategies. In Germany,
this is a particular problem in changing the
I
ous there is more emphasis on the contain- industrial sector in the new Lander to a more
ment of urban areas and stronger restrictions
on building in the countryside.
market orientated approach. Industrial invest-
ment has been, in the past, a cornerstone of
I
regional development policy, for example in
Innovative policies are evident in many Mem-
ber States. For example the 'residential con-
France. Industrial restructuring has shifted the
focus to improving the effectiveness and com-
I
tent of development' policy in Ireland seeks to petitiveness of industry, new technologies and
ensure that all new developments incorporate
a measure of social housing. In Finland, Ire-
innovation, and supporting small and medium
size enterprises.
I
land and Luxembourg there are attempts to
co-ordinate more closely spatial and fiscal
policies. In Germany, new speedier proce-
dures have been introduced to encourage
Environmental considerations in the siting and
operation of industries are assuming more I
importance with policy responses defining dif-
house building and renewal. ferent types of locations for various industrial
sectors (as in the Netherlands), integration
with commerce and housing to prevent urban
I
Industrial development and industrial sprawl (e.g. Germany) and issu-
ing guidelines for location of industrial devel-
opment at national or regional level (e.g. Den-
I
mark). Two main types of approach to loca-
Introduction tional policy for industrial development can be
discerned. The first approach is typical of
I
Industrial development policy includes a mix of countries such as Austria, Denmark, Finland,
measures used to encourage the relocation of
industry through assistance in one area and
Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Swe-
den, where the emphasis is on creating the
I
constraints in another, thereby contributing to right framework for industry by providing a
economic development, regional policy and
other policies on industry such as privatisation.
suitable range of locations, a good environ-
ment, appropriate education/training and infra-
I
Key factors shaping the responses in all Mem- structure. This allows industrial companies the
ber States are the need to improve the com-
petitiveness of the industrial sector whilst mini-
choice of locations to maximise their efficiency
and competitiveness. There is, however, in I
mising its impact on the environment; and the these countries, significant public control of

I
130 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I locational guidelines and on the designation of diverge on whether creating the right frame-
industrial zonings. In the Netherlands, for ex- work for private industry to operate in and

I ample, municipalities take the initiative for des-

ignation, acquisition and servicing of land for
industry. The second approach is where the
expand is sufficient or whether more direct
intervention in the form of subsidies, grants
and special permits is necessary to direct

I public sector has a more interventionist role

actually diverting/encouraging industries to se-
lected locations by means of tax concessions,
industry to suitable locations.

Several Member States stress the importance

I subsidies, permits etc. in order to reduce

regional disparities and strengthen areas in
decline, (e.g. France, Greece, Spain).
of research and development, for example
Germany emphasised this element contribut-
ing to CERN and EUREKA.Assistance to small
and medium sized enterprises was a key
I European Union policies
priority throughout the EU but especially in
France, Portugal and Spain. All the countries
mention a high level of commitment to the
I Member States receive funding from the Struc-
tural Funds for investment in areas lagging
promotion of industry compatible with environ-
mental quality. Denmark, Finland, the Nether-
behind in development (Objective 1 and 6) lands, Germany and the UK all have specific
I and for declining industrial regions (Objective
2) and from the Cohesion Fund. Community
policy towards sustainable industrial develop-
ment. In Luxembourg, government designate
Initiatives reinforce the EU's regional policies national industrial zones to prevent dispersal

I by providing funding through a number of

programmes for specific sectors where indus-
of industry, retain industrial centres and ensure
compatibility with tourism and environmental
trial restructuring is taking place (e.g. RE- protection policies.

I CHAR, KONVER, RETEXand RESIDER).

Regional level policies

I National level policies

Most Member States have national policies

Regional policy within Member States, empha-
sises the need to· tackle regional disparities

I and/or guidelines for industrial development.

This may be in the form of a national plan such
as the Greek, 1994-95 Regional Development
through the allocation of EU funding, notably in
Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Ireland (the
recipients of Cohesion Fund money). It is part
Plan; a policy document such as the Irish of the Greek 1994-1995 Regional Develop-
I Culliton Report: A Time for Change: Industrial
Policy for the 1990s (1992) or through legisla-
ment Plan to link the "competitive strength of
industry with new technology and infrastruc-
tion, for example the Portuguese Law 39-N94. ture" in order to strengthen policy at a regional
I A key element where there are former heavy or
traditional industries, is policies for revitalisa-
level.

tion and renewal using EU and national funds The· implementation of national polices such
I in partnership with regional and local authori-
ties and agencies.
as assisting declining industrial areas, reduc-
ing •regional disparities and carrying out
projects under the various Community initia-

I At this level, the need to provide the right

conditions for industry in terms of suitable
tives is undertaken at this level in partnership
with local authorities. In Denmark and the UK,
locations, environmental conditions, education in addition to the formulation of policies to

I and training of the workforce and good infra~

structure is evident. The requirements of mod-
ern industry and new technology are being
guide and regulate industrial development,
regional level policies/guidance seeks to coor-
dinate and provide a framework for infrastruc-

I addressed as is assistance for industrial pro-

ductivity, restructuring, technological innova-
tion and access to capital. Member States
ture provision at the local level. Austria, Ger-
many and Netherlands all identify suitable
industrial locations and infrastructure at the

I
I
Policies 131

I
 I
regional level and contribute funds for imple- Leisure and tourism
I
mentation. Suitable locations in the Lander are
identified in the regionafplane (regional plans)
and are translated into land use zonings in the
Introduction
I
urban land use plans.

Leisure and tourism includes policies for both

active and passive recreation, and also busi-
I
Local level policies

The role of municipalities varies from one of

ness travel. Achieving a balance between in-
creasing levels of leisure activities and environ-
mental protection is a key priority. There are
I
having significant influence especially for im- close linkages between policies here and
plementation of national and regional policy as
for example in the Netherlands, to one of
those for heritage, environmental protection
and economic development.
I
having virtually no role at all, as in Greece. At
the local level, policies are primarily concerned
with the zoning of land for industry through Context and issues
I
framework and detailed plans.

Also important is the acquisition and servicing

Over the past two decades there has been
significant growth in tourism in all Member
I
of land for industrial development which is a States. The tourism industry is of increasing
key policy area for municipalities in the Neth-
erlands. Spain's municipalities have a complex
economic importance, although growth has
led to increased pressures on the countryside
I
system of development profit distribution to and other popular tourist destinations, for ex-
pay for local services (water, electricity, etc.) to
industry. Local authorities in many Member
States provide some limited assistance to in-
ample coastal and mountain areas.
I
Rapid modernisation and investment in tourist
dustry at the local level through local economic
development policies e.g. promotion of the
area for inward investment. For example, Ire-
infrastructure to keep pace with changing tour-
ist demand patterns is now of primary impor-
tance especially in a number of the peripheral
I
land's County Enterprise Boards provide ad-
vice to businesses and provide a link between
business and education.
states, for example Greece, Portugal and
Spain. Regional imbalances in tourist develop-
ment and excessive saturation of specific ar-
I
eas has initiated programmes to extend the

Trends
tourist season in order to reduce seasonal
variations that exist in many countries, for
I
example in Austria, Denmark, Greece and Lux-
There has been a trend away from direct
intervention by governments to more empha-
embourg. I
sis on creating the right framework at national
and regional levels which is conducive for
modern industries to make their locational
European Union policies I
choices. This more market led approach· is Aspects of tourism are affected by European
more prevalent in the northern and central
Member States. Several countries are adopt-
policy and legislation. The Treaty on European
Union, recognises the need for measures
I
ing locational policies which identify suitable dealing with tourism. In April 1995 the Euro-
locations for different types of industries and
introducing policies of urban/industrial con-
pean Commission adopted a Green Paper
which aims to facilitate and stimulate the de-
I
tainment. Environmental considerations are in- velopment of tourism in all Member States.
fluencing industrial policy particularly with re-
gard to suitable locations and sustainable
This is to be achieved through the reinforce-
ment of economic and social cohesion, imple- I
development. mentation of the concept of sustainable devel-

I
132 The· EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I opment, support for SMEs in the tourist sector In countries such as Denmark, France, Ireland,
and harnessing structural and technological Netherlands, Spain and the UK national gov-

I changes to promote tourist development. ernment is primarily responsible for coordinat-

ing and guiding tourism and leisure develop-
Many European regional policies and Com- ment through guidelines and legislation. There

I munity initiatives have a direct impact on

tourism provision and development. Funding
are numerous examples where a strong lead is
taken by national government, for example the
Operational Programme for Tourism in Ireland,
is available for infrastructure developments

I which improve or create tourism potential

within an area, through the European Re-
gional Development Fund (Greece, UK, Italy);
the (4th) National Report On Spatial Planning
in the Netherlands, the National Development
Plan in France and national planning policy
guidance in the UK, which set out guidance for
I the conservation of coastal areas (ENVIREG)
(Denmark, France, Greece, Sweden); diversi-
fication of the rural economy (LEADER) (Ger-
the development of tourist related facilities; the
"National Tourism Plan - Futures", 1991-1995
many and UK) and area promotion and in Spain; and the 1950 Shore Act in Sweden
I marketing of tourism initiatives in border ar-
eas (INTERREG).
and the 1994 Coastal Bill in Denmark for the
protection of coastal tourism areas. Many
countries have national government depart-
I ments or affiliated departments to assist in the
promotion, development and implementation
National level policies of national tourism policy. Examples include

I In all Member States recognition of the impor-

the National Centre for Tourism Industry Serv-
ices in Denmark, the Tourism Department in
tance of the tourism and leisure sectors has France (part of the Ministry responsible for

I led to a varying degree of responsibility for

regulation, promotion and development at the
national level. Each Member State has its own
infrastructure, transport and tourism), the Min-
istry of Public Affairs in the Netherlands, the
Inter-Ministerial Tourism Commission in Spain,

I unique problems associated with the develop- .

ment of tourism for which policies have been
formulated. However, there are a number of
the Hellenic Tourism Organisation in Greece
and National Tourist Boards in the UK.

common policy themes which are evident in In a number of countries financial assistance is
I the majority of countries. General recreation
and tourism policies include:
provided by central governm_entin the form of
grants and/or subsidies, which are transferred
to the relevant tier for allocation/distribution. In
I • protection of tourism facilities from conver-
sion to other uses;
Denmark, Germany and Italy for example, fi-
nancial assistance is provided from the region
and local level to the private sector for the
I • environmental impact of tourism on the
physical and cultural environment;
development of tourism enterprise and the
maintenance and development of tourist facili-
ties. In France, financial assistance is allocated

I • promotion of accessibility to and supply of

tourist facilities;
to the region and local tourism agencies, to
promote and develop new tourism products
and for the management of tourism facilities.

I • reduction of resource consumption;

Regional level policies

I • protection of identified special tourist areas

for example· Alpine areas and coastal re-
sorts;
To varying degrees each Member State has a
regional structure with responsibility for the

I • marketing associated with the extension of

the tourist season.
formulation or implementation of tourism re-
lated policy. In many countries including Bel-
gium, France, Germany, Italy and Spain the

I
I Policies 133

I
 I
regional tier •is of primary importance. For and tourism policy at this level. In Denmark,
I
example in each region of Belgium there is a Germany, Ireland, Netherlands,,.Sweden the
Commissariat - General for Tourism, who is
principally responsible for the preparation and
preparation of detailed plans, are the primary
policy instrument for regulation and site iden-
I
implementation of specific tourism legislation tific'aticinfor tourism and leisure related devel-
and directives concerning hotels, travel agen-
cies, camping and social and rural touri'sm.
opment at the local level. In Germany the
BauNVO (federal land use ordinance) identifies
I
Tourism development planning is based on special areas serving recreational purposes,
sub-regional plans, and leisure facilities are
identified in detailed plans which designate
for example weekend home areas, holiday
. homes and caravan and camping areas.
I
zones for recreation.

In France the region defines medium term

objectives for regional tourism development
To assist in the promotion of local leisure and
tourism, a number of countries have special
I
organisations which work in cooperation with
policy. The regional structure plan for develop-
ment of tourism and leisure activities .formu-
lated by the regional tourism committee speci-
the local authority to assist in the provision of
tourist information, management and in some
I
countries the development of new tourist prod-
fies the procedures and conditions for the
implementation of these objectives. In its ex-
ecutive role it is responsible for development
ucts.
I
and infrastructure provision, financial assist-
ance for accommodation facilities, technical
advice. for the marketing of tourism products
Trends I
and vocational training. In Germany the LEP
(state comprehensive development plan) sets
out the aims for the planning of recreation and
A number of significant trends are identifiable
across the Member States. Environmental
degradation caused by rapidly increasing lev-
I
tourism throughout the Lander, where regional
els of tourism in key locations, for example in
plans provide the detailed designation of areas
for recreation and tourism, in accordance with Alpine areas (Austria) and coastal areas (Den-
mark, Greece, Spain and the UK) has led to
I
the aims of the LEP.
policies to protect the physical and historic/
Although other Member States do have a
regional tier with responsibility for tourism and
cultural environment from further damage,
through the promotion of sustainable develop-
I
ment and "green tourism". To reduce the pres-
leisure development, many in addition have a
regional plan for regulation of specific tourism
- related sectors, for example: Austria (Alpine
sure on these areas many countries are now
actively marketing tourist resorts throughout
I
areas), Denmark (summer cottage zones and the year to reduce seasonal variations.
natural resources in rural areas), and Portugal
.(built heritage and . diversification of tourist A number of countries are seeking to
I
products). strengthen coordination between all spatial
levels and promote participation between the
public and private sectors, for the implemen-
I
Local level policies tation of tourist and leisure related develop-

The importance of tourism and leisure at the

ment. Recently the recognition of the need to
integrate transport infrastructure with tourist
I
local level varies in each Member State. In and leisure facilities, is now viewed as an .
Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland and the
UK tourist development, regulation and man-
important priority. This trend is consistent with
the aims of sustainable development and I
agement primarily takes place at the local "green tourism". Finally, a recent emerging
level. In other countries such as Austria,
Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain there has
trend is the re-use of military bases and train-
ing grounds for tourist and leisure related I
been an emphasis on comprehensive leisure development, for example in Germany.

I
134 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I Natural resources ings have ceased, after care and restoration of
sites is also a common concern.

I Water resource planning and management

have many transnational implications. Tran-
Introduction

I • Natural resource management policy includes

snational and bilateral agreements are men-
tioned as being important in Greece, Spain
and Portugal. With fairly localised exceptions,
measures to plan the working and use of such
normally in southern Europe, the issue is not
I natural resources as agricultural land, forests,
minerals and water. The need to control the
exploitation of natural resources is widely ac-
one of quantity but rather the quality of water.
Whilst industrial and household discharges
into water are increasingly being treated, re-
I cepted and policy is particularly strong at the
national and regional levels, although there is
considerable variation reflecting the very differ-
duced and subject to more stringent control,
the pollution of surface and groundwater, as a
ent resources and conditions in the Member result of run-off from agriculture, is still cause
I States. Policies described here are linked
closely to those in environmental protection.
for much concern. The problem of water pol-
lution helping to create water shortages is
more important than the absence of water per

I Context and issues

se.

I The key issue is how can the natural resources

that a country possesses be best managed.
European Union policies

In the area of agriculture, reforms of the Com-

I This involves a careful balancing between, on

the one hand, the growing demand for the
exploitation of some natural resources and, on
mon Agricultural Policy have had a significant
influence in shaping change. The reduction of
land needed for agriculture may have impor-
the other hand, the implication for sustainable
I development and the need to· protect, con-
seNe and manage the natural environment.
tant implications for alternative land uses,
whether for forestry or other forms of develop-
ment. Furthermore, through Objective 5b, 6
and LEADER programmes, the EU has an
I Within the agricultural sector there are signs of
a shift of policy away from maximising produc-
important role to play in helping to promote
diversification of the rural economy. With for-
tion. This is partly related to greater awareness estry, there appear to be few major EU forestry
I of the harmful environmental effects that such
policy goals have had towards the landscape
programmes, though agricultural reforms may
create opportunities for woodland planting and
and ecological richness of the countryside. At in some countries European funds may be
I the same time agriculture continues to shed
labour and there is an important issue as to
used to monitor and manage the health of
forestry areas (see Environment section).
how to diversify the rural economy and support

I agricultural communities, particularly in periph-

eral areas. In the forestry sector the general
In respect of minerals exploitation, the policy
responses have been largely national in orien-
orientation of policy is to extend the area under tation, with little evidence of EU influence.

I woodland cover. Self sufficiency in timber pro-

duction is an important economic reason. But,
landscape enhancement, nature conseNation,
Because of the transnational nature of water,
whether by discharges into rivers, groundwater
systems or seas, the EU has been particularly

I job creation and recreational advantages are

highlighted also. In the minerals sector, the key
issue is how to reconcile the needs and de-
active in promoting minimum standards which
have important spatial planning implications.
EU directives for example, the quality of drink-
mands of the economy for the exploitation of ing water, discharges into rivers, quality of
I finite natural resources with the implications for
sustainable development. Once mineral work-
water on bathing beaches have all helped to
promote more stringent discharge standards

I
Policies 135
I
 I
and upgrade, renew or replace waste water uses. In some of the Nordic countries forest
I
treatment plans. expansion has been a long standing policy. In

The European Union is also an important

Sweden, for example, it dates from 1903, and
over the last 100 years timber supplies in for-
I
player in helping to broker international coop- ests have more than doubled. In Finland for-
eration on the protection of water resources.
For example, representatives from Germany,
estry strategy includes a commitment to main-
tain biodiversity. In Ireland national policy is to I
Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, Luxem- plant 80,000 hectares of woodland per annum
bourg and the EU have all agreed common
measures for the protection of the Rhine. In
some countries, particularly those eligible for
until the year 2000. Other countries with a
strong intention to manage and/or expand their
forestry resources include Greece, Luxem-
I
Cohesion Fund money the European assist-
ance in upgrading facilities is also seen as
important.
bourg (where tree felling requires both quantita-
tive and qualitative replacement), and Denmark
where the policy is to double woodland area by
I
2010. This requires the planting of at least 5000

National level policies

hectares per annum. Farmers are being en-
couraged through financial incentives to meet
I
some of this anticipated growth.

Agriculture
I
Minerals
•Reduction and re-orientation of agricultural
support has led several countries to promote The nature of national policy inevitably reflects
I
more environmentally friendly forms of farm- the geology of the country and the location of
ing. This usually involves more extensification
of practice and the adoption of environmen-.
mineral resources. There is a general attempt to
reduce the demand for minerals by recycling as
I
tally sensitive agricultural practices, the farm- much as possible, and control supply through a
ers receiving various fixed incentives. In Ire-
land, for example, under the RuralEnvironment
national policy framework of restraints. The ex-
ploitation of minerals requires careful planning. I
Protection Scheme (REPS) farmers who agree In the Netherlands national policy is to promote
to follow a basic code of good environmental
practice will receive an annual payment of
£125 per hectare. In certain designated areas
sustainable development and seeks to reduce
the demand for sands and gravels by recycling
building rubble. Nevertheless there is often op-
I
with environmental problems farmers can re-
ceive a 20% addition to the basic premium.
Despite this approach to reducing agricultural
position to extraction proposals. In the Wadden
Sea, a national decision was made to extract .
natural gas which required a further gas stor-
I
production in some countries, there is still age terminal. Whilst the local municipality were
considerable disquiet at the rate of loss of
good quality agricultural land for urban expan-
willing to modify their Bestemmingsplanin or-
der to facilitate this development, this would
I
sion. This was particularly noted in Greece have also necessitated changes to strategic
around Athens. • policy. The provincial authority refused to make
these changes ori environmental grounds. The
I
case currently remains unresolved. Such envi-
Forestry ronmental concerns have usually meant that
application for the right to exploit minerals usu-
I
In many national policy documents and plans ally have to be accompanied by an environ-
there is a widespread expectation at the na-
tional level that the area under forestry should
mental impact assessment (EIA).
I
increase. Furthermore, this expansion of wood- Another issue that does not receive much
land is not merely to provide local timber needs
but also multipurpose forestry with greater em-
comment is the after care and restoration of
land after mineral workings. Government guid- I
phasis on nature conservation and recreational ance, in the UK at least, requires developers

I
136 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I and local authorities to consider the issue
carefully when deciding whether to give per-
Regional level policies

I mission to exploit mineral resources. In the

former East Germany, uranium mining has left
behind seriously contaminated land and dan-
In some cases, it is at the regional or second
tier level that plans for exploiting, managing or
conserving natural resources exist. In the

I gerous waste. The original company has been

transferred to a Bund semi-public company
charged with closing down the mine and re-
Netherlands the provincial authorities are re-
sponsible fOf producing plans and granting
permission for surface mining. It is felt that only

I claiming the.land for cultivation. National gov-

ernment therefore provides a broad framework
within which regional and local policies can be
at this regional scale can appropriate strategic
decisions be made properly. The plans identify
three types of zone - those where surface
placed. mining in principle is acceptable, those areas
I where under certain conditions it may be ac-
ceptable and areas where mining will not be
Water permitted. In Denmark it was felt that compre-
I For many countries water planning is seen as
hensive sectoral planning of natural resources
at the regional level was too onerous and not
an important resource issue. However, with the really necessary. However, basic mapping at
I exception of Spain, where both the quality of
available water and its national distribution are
this scale is a useful source of information
providing a framework for local plans.
of national importance, most other countries
I are concerned with the contamination of sur-
face and groundwater supplies. The nature of
In Germany a major element of sector planning
for coal, which takes place at the Lander level
water planning at the national level varies and is integrated into their spatial plans, is the

I considerably among Member States, from

Greece which reported adequate water re-
sources but no national strategy, to Spain
reclamation of land formerly used for coal
mining purposes. Such reclamation is often
supported by financial aid from the Bund,

I where the National Water Council, with wide-

spread national regional and local representa-
tion, has produced a 20 year plan. The main
Lander and EU (see IBA Emscher Park case
study),

I focus of the plan revolves around water trans-

fer schemes and some 87% of the 1994 water
budget is targeted at this activity rather than
Perhaps the most interesting developments
are with water planning at the sub-national
scale. Regional planning of water resources is
waste disposal. Elsewhere the emphasis is on seen as an important function, but in several
I modernisation of facilities to reduce loss (e.g.
Luxembourg) or dealing with pollution of water
countries, plans are being made not on the
basis of administrative boundaries but rather
courses. In Italy a twinned pronged focus is related to catchment areas. This either re-
I creating a raft of legislation protecting against
discharge into water and this is being comple-
quires the agreement and co-operation of lo-
cal regional administrations or has to be un-
mented by research into the effectiveness of dertaken by a separate agency. This latter
I the operation. Pollution from agricultural
sources is noted as a major problem in Den-
approach has been adopted with the National
RiversAuthorityand the proposed Environment
mark, Ireland and the Netherlands. In Ireland Agency in the UK. Neither of these bodies,

I community support framework money is being

used to address this problem. In Denmark and
the Netherlands national policy notes the rel-
though vital for water in the UK, are account-
able directly to local administrations, but rather
to national government. In Italy the concept of

I evance of groundwater to development deci-

sions. In particular there is a need to protect
the water table from further lowering and this
regional basin plans to manage water re-
sources is relatively new. Plans for water re-
gions in Italy are still being formulated. Prob-

I policy has to be accommodated in lower ord~r

plans and incorporated into development de-
cisions.
lems of co-ordination and co-operation be-
tween the various partner authorities are re-
ported. In Portugal, France, Spain and Greece

I
Policies
I 137

I
 I
the idea of water basin management plans are major issue. Of much greater concern is water
I
finding favour. Often they have a transnational quality. It is interesting to note the emergence
orientation. For Spain, with acute water short-
ages, the need to collaborate over the man-
of water basin planning through which prob-
lems of transnational and inter-regional coop- I
agement of shared resources is particularly eration are reported.
critical.
I
Transport
Local level policies
I
In framework and detailed plan preparation
and decision making, local authorities have to
consider the frameworks set by higher tier
authorities. Thus, in Denmark and Finland, the
Introduction

Transport policy includes proposals for the

I
construction of new infrastructure, traffic man-
local authorities are responsible for the supply
management of minerals. In Spain, it is the
local authoritys' responsibility to improve the
agement, support for public transport, meas-
ures to coordinate traffic movements and
I
drainage and sewage facilities of the towns policy to improve access to services and the
and cities within their jurisdiction, though such
investment is often co-financed by regional
mobility of the population. The problems of
congestion or peripherality affect all Member
I
administrations. In making decisions about States and the relationship between transport
where new development can be located, local
authorities need to consider the potential risk
networks, urban development patterns and
economic performance are often recognised.
I
of the site being flooded or alternatively the The policies described here are closely related
development lowering the water table. The
promotion of forestry and to a lesser extent
to many other spatial policy topics.
I
more environmentally sensitive farming prac-
tices can often be encouraged but largely lie
beyond the scope of spatial planning.
Context and issues
I
The upward trend in traffic levels of all types

Trends
and forecasts of increased demand are noted
by most countries. The costs of congestion on
roads and in major cities is an issue of particu-
I
It seems likely that the move towards less
intensive forms of agricultural production will
continue, as will the desire to increase the
lar concern in transit countries such as Austria,
Belgium and Germany, and in the core cities
region. The role of transnational transport links,
I
amount of wooded land. These changes are particularly road and rail, is acknowledged by
being achieved in part due to revisions of the
fiscal incentives available to the occupiers.
all Member States both in terms of dealing with
congestion in urban areas, and in. improving
I
Denmark is moving towards an area based, accessibility to more peripheral regions. There
rather than case by case approach where the
character of the whole area can be enhanced.
is recognition of new axes of communication
such as east-west to central and eastern Eu-
I
With minerals planning there is growing recog- rope; and north-south to the Nordic countries,
nition of the finite nature of the resource.
Furthermore, local opposition to applications
but also the existence of significant gaps, for
example Greece and its links to the rest of the
I
for mineral exploitation raise the question as to European Union, which are currently affected
what is the most appropriate scale for strategic
mineral planning and decision making to be
by the situation in the former Yugoslavia. The
whole issue of peripherality and development I
made. Finally there is widespread concern potential in relation to the transport network,
over the planning and management of water
resources. With the exception of Spain, the
quantity of water does not appear to be a
both internal and external linkages, is raised as
a particular concern by Finland, Greece, Ire-
land, Portugal and Spain.
I
I
138 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I Increasing attention is being paid to the need transport with the "need to link islands, land
for sustainable development which has fo- locked and peripheral regions with the central
I cused attention on the environmental impact
of transport infrastructure and the need to
regions of the Community". The White Paper
"Growth, Competitiveness, and Employment"
reduce dependency on private road transport identified the creation of major infrastructure

I through spatial planning policies. The conflict

between continued growth in road transport
and its environmental impact present a major
networks as a key priority to improve the
competitiveness of •the European economy.
Guidelines have been established at the Euro-

I challenge to achieving sustainable develop-

ment. Policies to reduce dependency on road
transport are being promoted. The lack of
pean level for road, rail, waterways and air-
ports networks, • particularly for the planned
development of links between different forms

I integration between land use planning and

transport in order to achieve sustainable
growth and development is a key issue in
of transport. Priority programmes were identi-
fied in 1994 for a number of road, rail links and
airports with implementation to start within a
. many Member States and one which is being few years. As well as developing transport
I addressed. networks within the Community and establish-
ing links with Mediterranean countries and
The close connection between transport and eastern Europe, there are proposals to com-
I other sector policy areas is recognised but
there are weaknesses in integration between
bine existing forms of transport for example,
combining conventional rail and freight lines
land use planning and transport planning, and and for promoting inter-modal changes with
I in some countries a lack of integration be-
tween different transport sectors. Transport
local bus and metro services. These meas-
ures, together with proposals for both spatial
planning for roads, railways, airports, water- coordination and fiscal policies to curb traffic

I ways and ports is often undertaken as a

number of separate sectoral policies, as in
Austria, France, Portugal and UK. Integrated
growth in the future, continue to set a very
important framework for national policy.

I transport strategies which cover the whole

range of transport modes is a feature of some
Member States, such as Finland, Sweden,
National level policies

I Denmark and Luxembourg. The Netherlands is

proposing new integrated transport plans for
'transport regions', to address regional level
The European transport networks and guide-
lines have been assimilated into the national
policies of Member States with regard to the
aspects of transport policy.
I The development of inter-modal links is a key
road, rail, water and airports strategies. New
axes of communication are being developed
particularly the north-south axes for the Nordic
factor for countries such as France, Germany,
I Netherlands and Spain. Public concern for the
environmental affects of new transport infra-
countries with proposed links between Swe-
den, Denmark and Germany, plus additional
links to eastern Europe such as that between
structure is an issue in many countries, in Finland and Russia and the integration of the
I particular the effect on environmentally sensi-
tive areas such as Alpine areas and areas of
new Lander. Coordination between countries
on their national policies on transport is par-
ecological value or natural beauty. In cities ticularly evident in the transport sector.
I there is particular concern of the environmental
effects of traffic congestion and pollution and
their social and economic disbenefits.
A key feature of transport policies in nearly all
Member States is the promotion of the rail

I · European Union policies

network and particularly high speed rail links
especially in France, Belgium, the Nether-
lands, Germany and Spain. Both passenger

I The Treaty on European Union specifies the

development of Trans-European Networks in
and freight movements are encouraged
through upgrading existing lines, provision of
new links and service improvements. This is

I
I Policies 139
 I
part of a much wider policy theme to opportunities for regions through transport in-
I
strengthen and promote public transport as an frastructure is evident in France where there is
alternative to car use to achieve sustainable
growth and reduce negative environmental
a policy objective that no part of France should
be more than 50 km/45 minutes by car from a
I
effects. The expansion and promotion of the motorway which is linked to the national net-
rail network also takes place alongside the
completion of the motorway and major routes
work or a rail station served by the TGV.
I
network in several Member States for example The strengthening and improvement of public
Austria, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portu-
gal and Spain.
transport at the regional level, particularly in
cooperation with adjoining regions is a key
feature in Denmark and Germany. Key nodes
I
Approaches to the formulation of national
transport policies vary across Member States.
Some have, at national level, an integrated
for road/rail/water/air transfers, that is, a multi-
modal approach, are identified, for example in
Germany (regional freight haulage centres),
I
approach to national transport policy covering the Netherlands, and Spain (transport logistics
all or most sectors such as road, rail, airport,
waterways/ports etc. (at least in theory). These
centres) and the UK. I
include Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, In regions of sparse population there are poli-
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain. Others
tend to formulate transport policy on a sector
cies to improve existing regional roads and
maintain low traffic routes. In cities, which have
I
by sector basis at the national level, for exam- regional authorities or where municipalities
ple, in France, Greece, Belgium (part), Portu-
gal and the UK. Most of the transport compe-
work together, there are groups of policies
aimed at tackling specific city problems such I
tence in Belgium is, however, at the regional as congestion, pollution, accessibility, and
level (the exceptions being the federal railway
network and policies, and Brussels national
safety. These include new underground rail-
ways, (Athens region), new metro/tram sys-
tems (UK); peripheral road systems to relieve
I
airport). The Netherlands is proposing to cre-
ate 'transport regions' from groups of munici-
palities who will prepare integrated transport
plans for local and regional public transport,
pressure (Dublin), and improvements to sub-
urban rail services (Portugal). I
roads, parking, and to integrate these with
other elements of spatial planning. Policies for
integrating land use with transport policy are
Local level policies I
Local level transport policies tend to elaborate
identified in Germany, Ireland, Netherlands
and the UK. Germany, the Netherlands and
Spain identify special freight routes and logis-
and detail the policies of the higher level,
although within Member States some munici- I
pal· authorities take a more proactive role than
tics sites for the more efficient transportation of
freight. In some countries transport de-regula-
tion and the increasing use of private sector
others ..Urban municipal authorities are looking
at ways of reducing cars in towns and cities, I
improving public transport and improving con-
resources is a key feature of transportation
policy.
ditions for pedestrians, cyclists and less mo-
bile persons, especially in Denmark, France,
Italy, the Netherlands and the UK. New tram-
I
ways (France), new Metro lines (Paris), light rail
Regional level policies transit in several cities in the UK and extended/
improved suburban rail links (Portugal), are
I
The most regionalised approach to transport examples.
policy occurs in Belgium (except for railways
and Brussels airport). In most other Member
I
States, national transport policies are trans- Trends
lated into regional plans and programmes in
accordance with national policies. A regional There is a clear trend in many Member States I
emphasis with regard to equal development to take a more integrated and multi-modat

I
140 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I approach to transport sectoral policies at both ment to reduce, recycle, and re-use, there is
the national and regional levels. This finds an still widespread concern that the quantity of

I expression in the identification and promotion

of bi-modal. and multi-modal nodes for inter-
changes between ohe transport mode and
solid waste that needs to be safely disposed of
is still increasing. In Belgium, the production of
solid waste products is expected to increase

I another. As part of this integration trend in

sectoral policy, there is a clear recognition in
many Member States of the need for the
by 2.5% per annum until 2010, in Denmark the
volume of waste is expected to increase from
9.3 million tonnes in 1985 to 11.5 million tonnes

I integration of land use, transport and sustain-

able development policies, and for this to be
incorporated in national, regional and local
by 2000, and in the UK, household waste
(approximately 20% of total waste production)
is growing by 5% per annum. In some coun-
plans. The trend of decentralisation of some tries the problems of waste disposal are par-
I transport policy making was evident in Sweden
and Netherlands.
ticularly acute in certain localities and there is
considerable evidence of illegal dumping. In
Greece, such problems are evident in the
I Waste management and pollution
Athens metropolitan region and key tourist
areas. Similar difficulties were reported in Italy
and Portugal.
I In most countries the self sufficiency principle
Introduction appears to be operating, though some limited
I Waste management and pollution control are·
examples of bilateral agreements to transfer
waste have been mentioned. In Luxembourg,
two closely related policy areas. They include toxic waste is exported abroad, though this

I spatial planning measures to regulate the lo-

cation of related land uses, fiscal measures to
promote reductions in waste and pollution,
has been safely negotiated. Between France
and Germany, border transfers of waste pro-
duce have been agreed. Despite the attempts

I standards and regulations governing opera-

tions and movement of goods, and measures
to bring contaminated land back into use. All
to reduce the need to dispose of waste, the
most convenient method remains landfill. The
location of disposal sites is always controver-
Member States give this issue a high priority sial and there is growing evidence of articulate
I but with varying combinations of policy meas-
ures. National governments tend to set stand-
local groups opposing the specific siting of
these .facilities.
ards and administer regulations, whilst lower
I tiers deal with the locational issues. The poli-
cies described here are closely linked to those
With respect to other forms of pollution, air
quality and discharge into water courses were
for environmental management. - seen as the most critical issues. Much
I progress has been made in reducing the dam-
aging impacts of air and water pollution,
Context and issues largely through the adoption of cleaner tech-
I In recent years there has been a sharp in-
nologies and investment in water treatment
plant. Problems appeared to be more acute
crease in the amount of waste produced by and critical in Spain, Greece, Italy and Portu-

I society that needs disposal. Many countries

are beginning to recognise the need for a
gal. In Belgium, degradation of the environ-
ment as a result of air and/or water pollutants
broader more integrated approach to waste has largely been stabilised. However, this

I management, with a shift of focus from the end

(i.e. disposal) to the beginning (i.e. production)
of the ~aste chain. The principles and policies
should not cause complacency as the situa-
tion is still far from ideal. In Austria, the tran-
snational nature of the air pollution problem is

I of the EU in this area are being applied to

national legislation. In many countries, despite
agreement on the principles of waste manage-
highlighted, along with the need for interna-
tional or European-wide responses. In 1990
90% of the sulphur dioxide deposits in Austria

I
I Policies 141

I
 I
are estimated to have originated outside the monies are being used to locate or modernise
I
country. waste disposal facilities.

Water pollution, whether of rivers or groundwa- On pollution _control,numerous European en-

I
ter, is perhaps less significant due to improve- vironmental regulations and directives are im-
ments in sewage facilities. Contamination as a
result of agricultural activities is however, of
portant in establishing minimum criteria,
. though frequently these emission standards
I
widespread concern. In Spain, Greece and are not issued and monitored through the
Italy improvements in waste water treatment
allied to more effective, accurate and sophis-
spatial planning system. Upgrading of sewer-
age facilities in the new Lander of Germany, I
ticated monitoring procedures of discharge Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy and Greece
into water courses were identified as priorities. could all be supported by European funding
mechanisms. ' I
With both air and water borne pollutants there
has been much regulation activity, often to
ensure discharge complies with European leg-
islation. This appears to have been reasonably
National level policies I
successful and often beyond the scope of the
spatial planning system. Several Member
States have identified a new and emerging
It is at the national level that the inter-relation-
ship between national policy •and EU policy
programmes and secondary legislation is
I
form of pollution associated with transport
emissions. The need to consider the implica-
tions of the location of new development on
most clearly articulated. National governments
set the principles, standards and approaches
to waste management and pollution that need
I
patterns of transport needs careful considera- to be applied at the local level. The approach
tion. This more integrated approach is recog-
nised by both Sweden and the Netherlands,
to be adopted is often set out in key legislation,
for example, in Austria the Federal Waste
I
amongst others. No country reports the dis- Management Law, 1990. In other countries the
posal of nuclear waste as being a major policy
issue.
legal requirements are spread through a series
of discrete and sector orientated rules and
I
regulations. This is the case for example in

European Union policies

Italy, Spain and Sweden. The minimum stand-
ards set by the EU are normally complied with, I
though more stringent regulations are being
In attempting to address the problems associ-
ated with the disposal of solid waste, EU
regulations, agreements, principles and fund-
applied (see below). In some countries the
range of legislation and agencies responsible
for waste management and pollution is being
I
ing mechanisms were all deemed to be impor-
tant. The principles of the Fifth Action Pro-
gramme and the Waste Framework Directive
consolidated, with the concept of integrated
pollution control becoming more evident. This
is clearly the case in Ireland with the establish-
I
were important contextual factors in shaping ment of an Environmental Protection Agency
national policies. Nearly all countries advocate
adherence to the principles of reduce, re-use
and the UK with the Environment Act (1995)
and the creation of an integrated Environmen-
I
and recover waste before disposal, the need tal Agency.
to adopt the self sufficiency principle for states
or regions and the proximity principle to treat National legislation usually sets the detailed
I
waste as close to the source as possible. legal framework and identifies the broad policy

Furthermore,. for several countries, primarily

principles to reduce, re-use, recycle and safely
dispose of waste and improve the quality of
I
Objective 1 areas, EU funding was seen as an land, air and water by controlling hazardous
important mechanism to improve waste dis-
posal facilities. In Greece, Ireland, Spain and
discharges into them. Such legal frameworks
are often accompanied by a series of policy I
Portugal significant ERDF or Cohesion Fund statements or targets, often monitored through

I
142 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I periodic national environmental plans as policy amongst others, the need to consider the
programmes. In Denmark, the policy target set location of new facilities and the implications

I in the Recycling Action Plan 1990-2000 is to

increase recycling from a current 30% to 50%
by the year 2000. In Ireland it is hoped to
that such planning decisions have for private
car use, need careful consideration. In the
Netherlands this is articulated in the 'ABC'

I increase recycling from 7.4% of waste produc-

tion to 20% by 1999. In the Netherlands the
national environmental policy plans and the
profile locations, where sites with large num-
bers of visitors (A sites) need to be accessible
by public transport, whilst the C profile activi-

I National Environmental Perspective 2 (1990-

2010), state in order to cut the amount of waste
to be processed by 10% by 2000, recycling
ties which have few workers or visitors but
require high accessibility by car or lorry (e.g.
warehouses) can locate close to motorways.
mu.st increase from 50% to 65%.
I In two countries policy on waste has been Regional level policies
much·more pro-active, going well beyond tar-
I get setting. In Germany from 1991 onwards the
Verpackungsordnung (packaging ordinance)
The importance of regional authorities particu-
larly in the area of waste management is
made under the Abfallgesetz (1986 Federal emphasised by many European Member
I Waste Disposal Act) requires manufactures to
take back and reuse packaging for their prod-
States. At this level the primary function is to
identify suitable locations for waste disposal.
ucts. In France, such principles are being The most common method adopted is the
I taken still further with a new law of 1995 which
classifies waste as 'dechets ultimes' i.e. ulti-
production of waste management plans. Within •
these regions two of the key principles to be
mate final waste that cannot be treated or applied are self sufficiency, that is, within the

I recovered any further. Within 10 years waste

disposal sites would be authorised to deal with
this residual waste. In both countries the ca-
region there ought to be sufficient disposal
facilities to meet that region's waste disposal
. needs; and proximity such that the transporta-

I pacity and availability of suitable waste dis-

posal is rapidly being reduced.
tion of waste is minimised as far as possible. In
the federal and regionalised states of Austria,
Germany, Spain and Belgium, the autonomous

I In some countries, notably Austria, Luxem-

bourg and Portugal, the safe disposal of haz-
ardous waste was seen as particularly prob-
regions have much greater scope to influence •
policy. In Belgium, for example, the regions
have the power to set financial instruments to
lematic. Luxembourg dealt with the problem pass on the real cost of waste disposal to the
I through national agreements to export, and
Austria and Portugal are seeking to develop
producers. This, it is hoped, will act as a
deterrent to waste production.
new processing facilities (the latter utilising
I financial support from the EU). Elsewhere, for example, Denmark and Italy,
regionally based waste management plans set
In many countries industrial pollution of air and a framework for the implementation by lower
I water is largely being addressed through
tighter emission standards and the introduc-
tier authorities for determining the location of
waste disposal facilities and managing the
. tion of cleaner technologies into the industrial collection and disposal of household and in-

I production process. In other words, beyond

the scope of spatial planning. (The issue of
dustrial waste. In two countries the importance
of waste management planning at a •
water resources and water quality is dealt with 'regional'scale is being promoted. In France

I in the section on Natural Resources.) Whilst

such improvements are to be welcomed, sev-
eral countries note the problems of air quality
the regions are reported to be thinking about
requesting further decentralisation of respon-
sibilities so that they can more effectively man-

I associated with increased vehicular usage.

Whilst technological responses are important
in Italy, Greece the Netherlands and the UK,
age waste disposal issues. In the Netherlands,
the problems that municipalities or provinces
might have finding suitable disposal sites, has

I
I Policies 143
 I
been recognised by establishing four 'super the Agence de /'Environment et de la Maitrise
I
regions'. These collectives of provinces, cov- de l'Engerie (AEDME) acts as the regulatory
ering the North, Ranstad, South and Gelder-
land are responsible for cooperating to pro-
body for waste disposal. In Ireland and the UK,
pollution control is increasingly being taken out
I
duce waste plans complying with the self of the hands of local authorities and placed
sufficiency and proximity principles. In most
cases it appears that the regional administra-
within the remit of environmental protection
agencies.
I
tion is responsible for drawing up waste dis-
posal strategies, though this may be through
special agencies. I
Trends

Local level policies Waste management and pollution are seen as

I
important issues across Europe. In Belgium
It is at the local level that the frameworks set at
the national level and the strategies of the
the situation is described as having stabilised,
whilst in parts of the Mediterranean the envi-
I
regional tier are implemented. In some coun- ronment is deteriorating. This is often focused
tries, for example the UK and Ireland, the
production of waste plans is also a local
authority responsibility. It is normally· the re-
on key urban centres e.g. Athens or tourist
areas in Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy.
I
Every State is seeking means to reduce the
sponsibility of the municipalities to organise
the collection and safe disposal of household
and industrial waste. This service is sometimes
quantity of waste needing disposal. Waste
management is becoming an increasing prob-
I
supplied by private contractors. Also it is nor- lem, not least because of growing local oppo-
mally at the local level that the necessary
permits for tipping are issued.
sition to the location of waste disposal facili-
ties. NIMBYISM (not-in-my-back-yard) and ve-
I
hement pressure groups are reinforcing the
With local authorities being expected to meet
regional targets through their actions and ac-
need to reduce and recycle. Many Member
States are looking to raise public awareness to
I
tivities, raising public awareness is seen as help minimise waste production. It seems likely
being important. In parts of Belgium, a limited
house-to-house recycling collection service is
that significant extension of taxes on waste
disposal will be widely introduced, to act as a
I
provided, in France increasing the tax on further disincentive to waste production.
waste is intended to reduce the quantity, and in
Denmark raising public awareness is seen as With pollution control, more stringent stand-
I
a useful side product, even if targets are not ards and more effective monitoring and imple-
met. Furthermore, local authorities are often
responsible for monitoring water and air pollu-
tion levels and can take measures to curb
mentation, agencies are helping reduce the
amount of pollution emitted by industry to land,
I
air and water. Much of this activity is beyond
atmospheric pollution. For example, in Italy
and Greece traffic calming measures may be
taken within urban centres.
the scope of the planning system, though new
development proposals have to comply with
I
higher environmental standards. However,
Whilst the local administrations are normally
responsible for waste management activities
there is one area of growing concern and that
is the increase in atmosphere pollution arising
I
and managing air and water polluting activi- as a result of increased car use and urban
ties, there is some evidence to suggest such
functions are being focused at the national and
congestion. Whilst there is growing recognition
of the problem and notion that spatial planning
I
regional levels. In Greece, in order to address systems can have an important role in allevi-
the poor environmental conditions around Ath-
ens, these functions are dominated by the
ating the situation, as yet people are grappling
with the problem rather than having discov- I
national Ministry of the Environment. In France ered the solution.

I
144 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I G Towardsan understandingof systems
I in operation

I Introduction plans with high levels of vertical integration, it

may be generally conforming, but include ele-
ments of discretion, or there may be gaps in

I The previous sections have examined the ele-

ments that make up spatial planning systems
in the Member States, that is the framework of
the hierarchy of plans. This will affect the
relationship between the system (as reflected
in its plans and regulatory instruments) with the
plans and policy making, the procedures for
I regulation of development and implementation
mechanisms. This section attempts to bring
actual decisions taken.

together all those aspects in order to discuss

I the relationships between the instruments of
planning, decision-making and what actually
The relationship between
objectives, plans and decisions
happens on the ground to achieve stated
I planning objectives. This task is taken up more
systematically in the case study volumes There is no simple relationship between spatial
where the role of spatial planning in the imple- planning instruments and decisions or actions.

I mentation of projects of European-wide inter-

est are illustrated. This section takes a more
Three principal factors will affect the extent to
which plans are able to guide and control
general view of the operations of systems. It is actual land use change.· First, the planning

I based upon material provided by sub-contrac-

tors and references to views of Member States
or regions which follow are views provided by
system may allow for some discretion in
matching actual decisions with approved
plans and policies. This will be particularly the

I the experts in those countries.

The main contact of individuals with spatial

case where plans have not been prepared at
all or not kept up to date. Also it inevitably
raises questions regarding the functions that

I planning systems is usually through detailed

plans at the local level and the permit mecha-
nisms for regulation, undertaken by local au-
plans might perform. A plan may be perceived
as a 'blueprint' to implement in its entirety, or a
document that is intended to inform and guide

I thorities. However, such decisions are not

made in isolation from higher level plans or
administrative bodies responsible for spatial
decision making. In the latter case the system
may incorporate provisions for decisions to be
made which are not in accordance with the
planning, although the strength of linkage be- plan, and for the regulation of that develop-
I tween higher and lower order policies will vary.
A system may possess a rigid hierarchy of
ment to ensure that broader objectives are still
met.

I
Towards an understanding of systems in operation 145
I
I
 I
Second, there is the problem of ensuring that these issues and the case studies illustrate the I
new development is in conformity with plans, interplay of forces in particular situations. The
policies and regulatory mechanisms, and the
avoidance of unauthorised or illegal develop-
next two sections consider the extent to which
discretion can be exercised through the formal I
ment. Hence, this issue is about the extent to systems of spatial planning and the extent of
which development has been properly author-
ised by relevant public bodies, and whether
monitoring and enforcement procedures are
development which takes place 'outside' the
system. I
able to cope with problems, where this is not
the case.
Discretion in decision making
I
Third is the problem of designing policies and
planning instruments which recognise and
cope with inevitable uncertainty in their imple-
All. Member States have a hierarchical organi0
sation of plans and regulation with, in theory,
I
mentation. The implementation process in all each plan generally providing a framework,
Member States, including those with extensive
public sector control, is complex with many
and sometimes being legally binding on lower
tier plans and regulation. However, there are
I
interests and organisations having a role. In- numerous gaps in the theoretical hierarchies,
creasingly, in many Member States market
demand and private sector investment rather
both in the setting up of the systems and the
actual production of plans. These omissions
I
than government intervention are the determin- effectively establish some discretion, since ad
ing factors in realising development objec-
tives. Furthermore, there is a general need for
hoc arrangements often apply where there are
no plans. In some countries (for example I
plans, decisions and actions to respond to Finland) some lower tier plans are produced in
rapid economic, social, and cultural change.
The result is that decisions and actions may be
advance of upper tier instruments, which may
also introduce some flexibility in the· system. I
made in the light of quickly changing circum-
stances and important considerations other
than formal planning instruments. At one level
of analysis there is in this situation a lack of
In examining the relationship between plans
and decision making there has been a ten-
dency to categorise the system according to
I
conformity between the action taken and the
plan. However, the objectives for spatial plan-
ning may still have been achieved and the
whether it is rigid and committed or discretion-
ary. Most countries can be characterised as
having a planning system that is essentially
I
formal planning instruments may still have rigid where the detailed plan at the local level
been significant in considering the proposal.
The important question, as posed in the intro-
should be in conformity with higher order plans
and provides a high degree of certainty about
I
ductory section to the report is - what role did what development will be permitted .. Where
the spatial planning system play? detailed plans at the local level have been
prepared they are generally binding with lim-
I
All spatial planning systems seek to achieve a. ited discretion to allow for contrary decisions
balance between a committed plan which pro-
vides certainty to developers and other inter-
either to .the detail or the general objectives of
the plan. However, such an approach, whilst
I
ests by making decisions in advance of spe- creating a degree of certainty, suffers from lack
cific proposals coming forward, ·and respon-
sive mechanisms which allow for individual
of responsiveness in dealing with rapid tech-
nological, social and economic change, the I
decisions on each proposal in the light of growing demands for greater consideration of
changing public needs and market conditions.
The complex relationships that exist between
planning and action, and the influence that
environmental matters, and for providing a
wider, role for the private sector to be increas- I
ingly engaged in implementation. As dis-
particular institutions and can bring to bear on
this cannot be considered fully here. But the
Compendium also provide an introduction to
cussed in section A, this is widely recognised
with a trend for new mechanisms to be intro-
duced increasing the flexibility of systems. In
I
I
146 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I effect, this loosens the relationship between types of relationship between plans and deci-
plans, decisions and action. sion making:

I Where the public authority i~ in agreement with • committed systems where, in theory, there is
proposed development which would not be in little formal discretion for departures to local

I accordance with the plan, then the plan itself

has to be changed. This is usually through the
same procedure as for the original production
planning instruments, though in practice a
more discretionary approach may be
adopted. Examples of Member States falling

I of the plan, which may be very lengthy. A

number of countries, for example, Austria, Fin-
land, Italy and the Netherlands, have com-
within this category include, Austria, Den-
mark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lux-
embourg, Portugal, Spain and Sweden;

I mented on the problems of modifying and

updating plans. In these countries, mecha-
nisms have been introduced to permit greater
• moderate systems where there is an expec-
tation that decisions and plans should be in
flexibility in decision making. In Italy the ac- conformity, but where mechanisms have
I cordo di programm, is an agreement between
different levels of government administration
been introduced to enable greater discretion
and flexibility in decision making in practice;
regarding development proposals, and allows examples include Belgium, Finland, Ireland
I for decisions to be made which go beyond the
provisions of plans, with possible amend-
and the Netherlands;

ments to the plan at a later date. In Spain, • discretionary systems where development

I departures from the plan are possible, espe-

cially for larger developments, and these are
proposals are considered on their individual
merits, though there is an expectation that
similarly incorporated into the next plan review. the development plan should prevail, for

I In the Netherlands, the role of municipalities'

pro-active land acquisition programmes in ac-
cordance with an approved bestemmingsplan
example, the UK.

I help to ensure that public policies are imple-

mented. Whilst this provides the impression of
a committed approach, there is considerable
Departures from plans

Despite the apparent rigidity of most systems,

scope to make a decision in anticipation of a
I plan, as an exception to a plan, or to produce
a more general scheme identifying policy prin-
departures from plans are commonplace. Of
the countries with rigid binding plan systems
only Denmark, Luxembourg and Germany ac-
ciples with the details being elaborated close tually report that few departures take place.
I to the time of decision. Therefore, whilst cer-
tainty is embodied into all planning systems
Elsewhere, departures are not uncommon al-
though they are usually subject to safeguards
there is scope for discretion which is regularly to ensure that the decision is in the 'general
I used. It would appear that some planning
systems are becoming less rigid and more
interest'. In cases where departures are made,
conditions are generally imposed on develop-
discretionary. ment to ensure that it meets required stand-
I In the United Kingdom the plan is not a legally
ards and objectives. For example, in France a
departure is only possible when the state
binding document, however decisions must (national government) and ·the relevant com-

I accord with the plan unless there are convinc-

ing reasons to support a proposal which is
contrary to the plan. Here, the tendency over
mune agree to it. Where there is a moderate
number of departures the •plans are usually
effectively updated to bring them into conform-

I recent years has been to increase the signifi-

cance of the plan as a consideration in deci-
sion making.
ity with the actual decisions made.

In Italy and Greece the planning systems are

I Notwithstanding the fact that each system is

different there appears to be three general
struggling to keep official plans up to date with
the reality of development actual takirig place.
In both cases the spatial planning system

I
I Towards an understanding of systems in operation 147

I
 I
appears to be heavily reliant on very elaborate, of infrastructure provIsIon. Nevertheless, a
I
detailed and sometimes old zoning plans second Condono was to be approved in 1994.
which are often unrealisable. The more flexible
framework policy documents tend not to be in A number of Member States have had a recent
I
place, and there is a very real problem of history of unauthorised development or mod-
unauthorised development as discussed be-
low.
erate levels in particular localities, for example,
Belgium, Portugal and Spain. This tends to I
represent an historic problem rather than a

Unauthorised development
contemporary issue, with the planning sys-
tems recently becoming better able to regulate
new development. In Spain there has been
I
In addition to the extent to which planning
decisions conform to the plan or public policy,
there is the further issue of development com-
extensive development of housing and indus-
trial works on so called 'undevelopable land'
beyond the urban limits of settlements.
I
plying with planning regulations, whether this
is a plan or a regulation decision. A few
Member States continue to have particular
Coastal areas have been particularly vulner-
able. These buildings do not have the benefit
of necessary infrastructure. The local authori-
I
problems with unauthorised building work out- ties do have the power to require demolition
side of that authorised by the planning system.
Considerable efforts are being made in these
(within four years of building) but over recent
years much of the unauthorised development
I
countries to address the problem which is has been retrospectively legalised by new
linked to particular pressures they face. Two
countries, Italy and Greece report high levels
plans, followed by necessary urbanisation
works being undertaken. Tighter controls are
I
of unauthorised development, but historically it being exercised together with enforcement ac-
has also been a significant problem in other
Member States. In Greece unauthorised devel-
tion, and violation of planning law is now a
criminal offence. Similar problems have af- I
opment has been a particular problem, with fected Portugal, especially through low income
much effort expended on bringing the plans up
to date with actual development. In 1983 a new
housing clandestinos, and illegal development
along the coasts, but this is now becoming
less significant. In Belgium the problem of
I
law was introduced to legalise existing unau-
thorised buildings, which otherwise could not
be 'urbanised'. That is, they could not be
legally connected to water, electricity, sewer-
unauthorised development has affected par-
ticular locations and sectors of activity, notably
the creation of offices in residential areas of
I
Brussels and weekend residences.
age and other infrastructure because they
lacked planning permit authorisation. Other
measures have also been introduced to pro- Elsewhere, the planning systems have been
I
tect special areas including the coastal zone, relatively effective in regulating development
from unauthorised building. The public authori-
ties have been taking stronger action against
and in limiting the amount of unauthorised
building, for example, Austria, Denmark, Fin-
I
unauthorised building by issuing an increasing land, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg,
number of demolition orders. Netherlands, Sweden and the United King-
dom.
I
In Italy similar action has been taken with a law
in 1985 to legalise much of the very extensive
unauthorised development or abusivismo par-
It is important to note that where the problem
of unauthorised development occurs, the par-
I
ticularly in some central and southern regions ticular characteristics of the planning system
and towns. The state has since sought to
legalise these buildings through the Condono
may only play a small part in explaining it.
Greece and Italy have quite different systems I
law which required a payment of money, part in many ways, for example the· Greek system
of which goes towards the costs of infrastruc-
ture and service. The income however, has
been very small in comparison with the costs
has been highly centralised whereas the Italian
system is regionalised with the considerable I
involvement of very many small local authori-

I
148 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I ties. Factors outside the formal planning sys- ticularly true of those systems described as
tem will play the determining role in its opera- moderate or distant.

I tion and effectiveness. Factors such as the

historical relationship between citizens and
government, attitudes t9wards land and prop-

I erty ownership, and the spatial and land impli-

cations of economic and social relations will all
play a part, amongst other historical, and
A broad classification of systems
in operation

I cultural conditions.

From the preceding analysis it is possible to

The discussion above has categorised sys-
tems in two ways. First, the level of discretion
allowed in the system between plans and
I categorise the systems again into three broad
categories, according to whether the objec-
tives of the system are being realised in prac-
decisions and second, the realisation of plan-
ning objectives in practice. The two categories
tice. The simple categorisation is 'close', mod- can be usefully drawn together. The following
I erate or distant. discussion takes each of the categories of
'realisation of objectives' - close, moderate
• A system may be described as 'close' where and distant - and examines the relationship
I there is a good match between the ex-
pressed objectives of the system and what
· with the extent of discretion in the system.

happens in practice. In other words there First, are systems that exhibit a close relation-
I tends to be congruence between policies
and outcomes (although the precise role of
ship between objectives and reality.

spatial planning in this relationship may be

• The UK has a discretionary system and yet
I quite different from one system or even
situation to another).
there tends to be a close relationship be-
tween objectives of the system and practice.
The enhanced status of the development
I • Second, some systems may be categorised
as 'distant'.where objectives are not realised
in practice. There may be some variation
plan together with the introduction of man-
datory local authority area-wide plans is
intended to create greater certainty.
I from area to area but there are significant
areas where the system is apparently not
functioning. This may arise because instru- • Four countries, Denmark, Finland, Ireland
and the Netherlands already have a moder-
I ments that form part of the system in theory,
are in practice not produced or kept up to
date. It may be that regulation decisions are
ate degree of flexibility in decision making,
and planning objectives and policies are
not enforced, and in both cases other eco- relatively close to development that takes
I nomic and social factors may be very sig-
nificant.
place. In these cases, the intention is that
the local plans are binding, although in
practice mechanisms have been instituted

I • Third, many Member States can be located

between these two extremes, where there is
to ensure a greater degree of flexibility in
decision-making than may initially appear
generally a fair match between objectives possible.

I and reality, but also examples where this is

not the case. • There are also systems in this· category
which have little flexibility in operation. In

I It is important to note that many of the systems

are undergoing change which is intended to
some countries this very firm framework has
been successful. France, Germany, Luxem-
ensure that they overcome perceived weak- bourg and Sweden all have systems where

I nesses and thus become more responsive to

market circumstances, and/or rigorous in con-
trolling unauthorised development. This is par-
development is generally in conformity with
the planning framework, and where the sys-
tems appear to operate relatively effectively.

I
I Towards an understanding of systems in operation 149

I
 I
Second, are systems that exhibit a moderate discretion in decision making but are charac-
I
relationship between objectives and reality. terised by high levels of unauthorised develop-
Effective control across the whole of the coun-
try has not been achieved and for particular
ment and a plan-making framework w~ich has
important omissions; some areas do not have
I
regions or parts of these countries there are plans, and existing plans may be outdated.
important gaps in the planning framework, or
significant levels of unauthorised develop-
These systems are, however, undergoing sub-
stantial review. I
ment.

• There are two countries which have mecha- How systems work in practice
I
nisms allowing for departures but where the
system has not been able to maintain con-
trol in given areas. Belgium is a special case
where the three systems are currently estab-
This brief discussion highlights the difficulty of
going beyond the formal descriptions of sys-
I
lished, with new instruments and proce-
dures being introduced. There has been
unauthorised development in particular lo-
tems to consider their operation in practice.
The relationship between plans, regulation and
development is complex. Nevertheless, the
I
cations, with the private sector often making discussion does draw attention to the very
development decisions in advance of, or
contrary to, any planning framework. In Por-
important point that planning systems that are
organised according to very different princi-
I
tugal, the system has been characterised by ples can be equally effective in the sense that
a significant amount of unauthorised devel-
opment. There is considerable progress .be-
the broad objectives of policy are realised.
Systems that operate a very firm zoning ap-
I
ing made to review the system. At the local proach to control where few decisions can be
level, the political, subjective and potentially
biased determination of 'autonomous' plan-
made that are not in accordance with adopted
plans can be effective. But also a system
I
ning applications is giving way to a much which has allowed for considerable discretion
more objective and technical analysis based
upon the new regulating frameworks of the
at the time that decisions are made can also
be effective. It is also interesting to note that I
municipal plans. Most municipalities are· increasing complexity or rigidity in approaches
working hard to ensure that they have an
approved Plano Director Municipal (PDM)
without which they are unable to access
to planning will by no means guarantee suc-
cess. The system of spatial planning has to be
appropriate to the circumstances of the par-
I
central government funding. Thus it is clear
that there are attempts to ensure a closer
correspondence between the objectives
ticular country or region. Crucially, the histori-
cal, cultural, political and other conditions
within which a system operates will play a
I
determining role in the way that it is used.
and the way the system operates in practice;

• Spain has an essentially committed system This volume has provided a description of the
I
though there is variation across the country formal systems and policies, together with a
regarding the rigowr by which the system
operates in practice. Recent trends have
brief discussion of important factors in the
operation of the systems in practice. To under-
I
been to establish a much more rigorous stand how the systems operate it is ~ecessary
system than hitherto. to consider how the systems are used and
policies applied in particular development situ-
I
Finally,there is a group of countries, where the ations. The thematic case study volumes in-
system in theory is based upon the principle of
committed decisions in plans, but where in
vestigate the role of spatial planning in a series
of major projects which are of transnational I
practice there has been considerable discrep- interest.
ancy between the objectives of the system and
reality in significant parts of the country. By focusing largely on projects that have been I
Greece and Italy both have little apparent or are in the process of being realised the case

I
150 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I studies draw out the way that different agen- how a balance may be achieved between
cies and mechanisms interrelate, the way that recreation/ tourism, industrial/ commercial

I policy initiatives are incorporated into the sys-

tems and the growing importance of the role of
European Union policies, initiatives and pro-
interests and nature conservation.

Optional Case Studies include:

I grammes in shaping spatial planning in indi-

vidual Member States. There are seven case
studies from each country, five are mandatory • Environmental Policy: examples of where
to all countries and a further two case studies environmental policies are adapting to local
I have been from a selection of six topic areas. conditions and integrating with spatial plan-
ning (for example, environmental impact
Mandatory Case Studies include: studies) and projects where development
I • Trans-European Networks: the planning and
pressures and environmental considera-
tions are being reconciled.
development of major infrastructure within
I Member States, for example, road, rail and
airports. Examples focus on links that are
• Industrial Decline: how policies and practice
achieve the revitalisation of old industrial
built or under construction. • areas tackling problems of vacant/ derelict
I • Regional Policy: the implementation of in-
buildings, poor infrastructure and lack of
investment, etc.
dustrial/ commercial development using

I Structural Funds. These case studies will

address the effectiveness of the funds in
areas where market forces alone are insuf-
• Neighbourhoods in Crisis: to illustrate inte-
grated responses to urban regeneration
through multi-dimensional projects aimed at
I ficient.

• Cross-border Cooperation: examples of

employment promotion, infrastructure im-
provements and environmental, crime pre-
vention and image enhancement.
I joint projects strategies etc., which address
cross-border issues (for example, develop-
ment perspectives, tourism initiatives): use • Rural Revitalisation: to illustrate initiatives
of INTERREGfunding. Some concentrate on which respond to problems of rural areas
I information building or policy formulation
but others relate to specific development or
through rural development, tourism promo-
tion, commercial networks, diversification of
environmental projects. rural economies, etc.
I • Management of Urban Gr°"vth: ways in
• Heritage Preservation: to illustrate the con-
which policies and practice address the
servation and promotion of historic areas in
I problems of urban growth, for example,
major peripheral extensions, and new settle- the context of urban revitalisation and eco-
nomic and social re-conversion.
ment proposals. Case studies will include

I areas where there are substantial pressures

for growth and environmental protection • Special Events: case studies to illustrate the
role of special events in the reconstruction of

I • Coastal Planning: how different pressures

on coastal areas are reconciled for example,
urban areas or the promotion of regional
development.

I
I
I
Towards an understanding of systems in operation 151
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I H Appendices
I Appendix 1: References

I CEC (1991) Europe 2000: Outlook for the Development of the Community's
Territory, Office for Official Publications of the European Com-
I munities, Luxembourg

I CEC (1994) Europe 2000+: Cooperation for European TerritorialDevelop-

ment, Office for Official Publications of the Europ~an Commu-
nities, Luxembourg

I Goodall, B. (1987) The Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography, London, Pen-

guin

I Hall, P. (1992) Urban and Regional Planning, London, Routledge

I Johnston, R. J., Gregory, The Dictionary of Human Geography (Third Edition), Oxford,
D. and Smith, D. M. (1994) Blackwell

I Kolprun Consultants (1991) Physical Planning Systems in the EC Member States

A Global Survey, DGXVI European Commission, Brussels
I Wiehler, F. and Stumm, T. (1995) 'The powers of regional and local authorities and their role in

I the European Union', European Planning Studies, 3(2): 227-

250

I
I
I
I Appendices 153
I
I
I
I
I
I Appendix 2: Glossary

I Each country volume of the Compendium includes a glossary, giving brief explanations of the
principal terms used in the text in the home language. The comparative review makes use of a

I number of terms which are translated and which are used in different ways in the Member States.
The glossary has been prepared for the purposes of the Compendium only and should not be
taken as necessarily the interpretation of the Commission.

I betterment The unearned increase in the value of land and property which
accrues as a result of the actions of government, typically through
the granting of rights to develop, and which often attracts a tax or
I other duty. •

central government See national government.

I development Converting the form of land and property or its use. This is defined
specifically for each system and may be further elaborated through
I planning instruments. It usually includes new building, alterations to
existing buildings, engineering operations such as minerals exca-
vation, demolition of buildings and certain changes in the use of
I property. •

development rights The legal right to develop or change to undertake development

I granted some limited development rights are granted by constitu-

tions.

I framework plan/instrument Instrument providing a general spatial framework for a town or city.
It is implemented through more detailed regulatory instruments and
sometimes described as a municipal masterplan.

I local authority/
local government
The lowest tier of elected government. There may be more than one
tier of local government.

I national government • The government of the Member State.

I planning instrument .The means by which planning policy is expressed and imple-
mented, including plans, briefs and other map based documents,
but may also include fiscal or other measures.

I
I Appendices 155

I
 I
planning system The combination of legal, institutional and other arrangements in
I
place in a country or region for undertaking spatial planning. The
elements of a system may not be interdependent but will be
interrelated in their impact on spatial development.
I
regional government The tier of government between national and local. There may be
two tiers of 'regions' for example in Germany, the Lander and
I
Regierungsbezirk.

region An area of territory which can be defined for spatial analysis and
I
planning purposes as distinct and coherent, and/or the division of
a country into administrative areas.
I
regional planning Planning for a region. This is usually undertak~n by regional
authorities, but may also be undertaken by national government, or
local authorities working jointly. It will generally be strategic planning I
but with different degrees of integration between land use and other
sectoral planning.
I
regional policy Policy intended to bring forward measures to address social and
economic disparities between regions. It will usually entail promot-
ing the economy of relatively poor regions through financial aid,
•training and other action, and controlling growth in relatively rich
I
regions. Regional policy operates at the EU and national levels
. although it might also operate to address disparities between
sub-regions within a large 'region'.
I
regulation That part of a spatial planning system which deals with the issuing
of permits to allow development to proceed and to enforce
I
compliance with decisions.

regulatory plan Instrument regulating or implementing land development, building,

I
or changes of land and property use. Such instruments identify
specific locations for development and are usually legally binding. I
spatial development Changes in the distribution of activities in space and the linkages
between them through the conversion of land and property uses. I
spatial planning Public policy and actions intended to influence the distribution of
activities in space and the linkages between them. It will operate at
EU, national and local levels and embraces land use planning and
I
regional policy.

strategic planning Preparation of strategy of framework, identifying the broad patterns

I
of growth but not detailed land allocations or zoning. Strategic
planning is generally long term and comprehensive, bringing
together social, economic and spatial considerations.
I
wor-senment A decrease in the value of land and property which results from the
actions of government, and which may attract financial or other I
compensation from government.

I
156 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I Figure 1: Methodology for producing the Compendium

I Member States Commission Lead Contractor

Sub
Experts
Contractors

I Coordinate Project _,
Agree Sub-
-- _ •Agree Sub-
-- EstablishmenU -- Appoint Sub- Appoint

I
Contractors Experts
PtoJect Set Up Contractors - -ontractors Programme
~ I
& Programme

I Draft Framework
l , Advise on
Framework

I I
Preliminary
Briefings/
·Liaison

I Preparatory
Information
Collection

I I
I Data Col/eel/on,
Preparatory Warlc
Plenary Seminar I. Review and agree brief With sub -contractors
I I

I Liaison for
information
-
Report to
Commission

'
Modify
Brief

I
I
Agree Work
Programme
-
~

- Preparation
of first draft
--
Advise on
modifications
to brief

I
I
Quality
Con19>l
I '
Critical review
of Part I
-- -- Critical review
of Part I

I I
, I
''
Feedback
1--, -,
PlenarySeminar II. Review Initial drafts of Part I; Discuss framework for Part II

Redraft
I
-
I Liaison and

'
Part I
consideration
of draft
Review content
and style of -- Referee
revised draft

I
Comparative
ovent/ew revised draft

I
- '..
Report to
CSD

- Report to Informal
Council of Ministers
I
I
~

Comment~ i
Comment I- ::: 1 Draft Comparative I - - !comment I
--
~

Review ~

I
I +
Comparative
I Comment
I
Review
I

I
I I '
Final edit of Part I systems
I

I Appendices 157

I
I
I
I
I
I
I Appendix 3: Approach & Method ments. Each sub-contractor was responsible
for liaising with their national administration

I This appendix describes the method used to

produce the Compendium. The Compendium
and representative on the Committee on Spa-
tial Development, in the production of indi-
vidual Member States reports.
is intended to provide an authoritative, consist-
I ent and comparable source of information on
spatial planning systems and policies through- During 1994, in anticipation of their member-
ship of an enlarged Union, Austria, Finland and
out the Member States of the European Union.

I It does not attempt to evaluate the relative

merits or shortcomings of different national
systems. The Compendium is divided into two
Sweden requested participation in the Com-
pendium and became full members of the
team.

I parts. Individual country volumes and this

Comparative Review describe the institutions,
instruments and policies of spatial planning
Four experts with specific knowledge of sev-
eral systems and European-wide issues were

I that exist in the Member States. Separate

thematic volumes examine the ways in which
spatial planning systems work in practice
also appointed to advise the lead contractor.
These experts were drawn from Italy, Spain,
Sweden and the UK. A full list of sub-contrac-
through a series of case studies. This report
I provides a comparative review of institutions,
agencies, mechanisms and instruments of
tors and experts are provided on page iii.

The methodology for producing the Compen-

spatial planning in the fifteen Member States.
I A team of sub-contractors, one in each of the
dium is set out in Figure 1. The complexity of
the task and sheer volume of information con-
tained in the compilation of the Compendium
then twelve Member States, was appointed by
I •the lead contractor. Following an open call for
tenders, Plan Local was appointed by the
for fifteen Member States meant that all sub-
contractors have followed a clearly defined
framework. Each sub-contractor prepared an
Commission as the lead contractor to produce
I the Compendium. Plan Local comprises a UK
partnership between the private consultants of
initial report of the country's planning system
within this framework. Despite this rigorous
approach some compromises had to be made
Chesterton Planning & Consulting and the

I School of Planning, University of Central Eng-

land. Each national sub-contractor was ap-
proved by their Member State government,
in order to accommodate the many variations
and differences in systems which exist. All the
systems described in the Compendium have
adopted the same overall format. Each report
I usually through representatives on the Com-
mittee on Spatial Development. The sub-con-
tractors are experts on spatial planning sys-
has been thoroughly scrutinised by the main
contractor and two of the appointed experts.
tems in their respective country and are mainly Considerable editing has subsequently been
I academics or work in semi-public consultan-
cies with close links to government depart-
undertaken to try to ensure consistency be-
tween volumes.

I
Appendices 159
I
I
 I
Each Member State volume of the Compen- DGXVI.The first meeting enabled the brief to
I
dium provides a description of the institutions be explained and for the sub-contractors to
which formulate and influence plans and poli-
cies at national, regional and local levels; the
begin to develop a common understanding
and approach. The second seminar enabled I
policy instruments such as regional and local further sharing of ideas and exchanges of
plans; the procedures for regulating develop-
ment, the mechanisms which exist for imple-
mentation and the policies pursued at EU,
best practice for revised briefs to be drawn
up. I
national, regional and local levels. A glossary
of key terms in the original language, with a
brief explanation of their meaning and purpose
• Comparative: Due to the consistency of
approach between the sub-contractors it
should be possible to find comparable infor-
I
is also provided in each individual volume.

Thematic volumes illustrate how the systems

mation at similar points in the individual
reports making up the Compendium. How-
ever, care is needed in interpretation and
I
operate in practice through a series of case generalisation because of the many subtle
studies. differences between mechanisms, and the
significance of the particular institutional and
I
A number of guiding principles have helped to political contexts in which they operate.
guide the preparation process. The inevitable
comparisons made in the structure and pres- • Contemporary: At the first plenary session it
I
entation of such a large amount of material was agreed that 1 January 1994 should act
have been made with these principles in mind.
The Compendium is intended to be:
as the benchmark for the Compendium. This
. was a pragmatic decision made in the full I
knowledge that planning systems through-
• Authoritative: The work is prepared by plan-
ning experts in each of the Member States
who have been approved by their own na-
out Europe are in a state of flux. Neverthe-
less the Compendium provides an accurate
description of the systems at this particular
I
tional governments, usually through repre-
sentatives on the Committee of Spatial De-
velopment. Each sub-contractor was re- •
date and how the systems may be likely to
change in the near future. There is a clear
recognition that the Compendium will need
I
sponsible for liaison with the Member State to be regularly updated to maintain its accu-
government. Members of the Committee on
Spatial Development have all had an oppor-
racy and usefulness. I
tunity to comment on the individual volumes • Comprehensive: The Compendium at-
and the Comparative Review. In addition,
each of the national texts has been reviewed
tempts to cover all aspects of spatial plan-
ning for each of the Member States. How-
I
by at least two external experts, and Mem- ever, it does not specify all the details of
ber State governments have had an oppor-
tunity to comment.
different systems within a Member State.
This is an important limitation particularly for
I
those States with a federal structure.
• Consistent: A detailed brief outlining the
format, style and content of the Compen- The Compendium is being prepared on behalf I
dium was issued by the lead contractor. Two of the European Commission, but it is hoped it
plenary seminars have been held (Decem-
ber 1993 and July 1994) in Brussels, at-
tended by the lead contractor, sub-contrac-
will be of wider value to Member State govern-
ments, regional and local authorities, the pri-
vate sector, public interest groups and aca-
I
tors, experts and representatives from demics.
I
I
I
160 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Appendix 4: Terms of Reference growing need for more insight into the mecha-
nisms of these different systems. In addition,

I 1. Context
as the socio-economic interactions between
the Community countries increase, so too will
the need for a further exchange of information
regarding the main planning policy priorities of
I The document "Europe 2000: Outlook for the
Development of the Community's Territory*"
the different Member States.
states that 'planning in relative isolation is no
It is from this perspective that the _Ministersof
I longer possible'. Member States, regions and
many municipalities are becoming more aware
of this fact. Patterns of activities and land use
Regional Policy and Planning at their 3rd infor-
mal meeting in the Hague in November 1991
supported the preparation of a Compendium
I in their territory are being increasingly influ-
enced directly or indirectly by developments
and policies in other countries. The Single
- an overview of the different planning sys-
tems and policies - in the various EC Member
Market will bring a further internationalisation of States. This was reaffirmed during their 4th
I economic and other activities and the mobility
of firms and people will increase. The loca-
informal meeting in Lisbon in May 1992.

tional patterns of these activities are changing. The compilation of this Compendium will form
I Community policies, such as on trans-Euro-
pean networks, are having a growing influence
an important element of the Commission's
work programme in the field of spatial devel-
directly or indirectly on land use. There is a opment for 1993 - 1994.
I need within the Community for a greater co-
operation between planners at national, re-
gional and local levels.

I Yet there is, and will remain, a great diversity of

planning systems in the Member States, which
2. Objective and Use of the Compendium

The main objective of the Compendium is to

I have all evolved in response to the different

social, economic and geographical conditions
as well as of the political traditions prevailing in
provide an authoritative and comparable
source of information about planning systems
and policies in the Member States of the

I the individual country. It is therefore important

under the present circumstances that plan-
ners, politicians and the private sector in dif-
Community. Provision of information is thus the
paramount function, to improve knowledge on
a comparable basis of the different planning
ferent parts of the Community should be in- systems and policies within the Community.
I formed of the administrative traditions, plan-
ning laws and regulations and planning proce- A second function is to illustrate some of the
dures in other Member States. There is a
I * COM (91) 452 final, October 1991.
problems and opportunities which arise as
planning policies are actually implemented,
taking into account differences between the

I
Appendices 161
I
I
 I
formal procedures as laid down in laws and • it is essentially a project of cooperation
I
regulations, and the experience in practice. between the Member States and the Euro-

The principal users of the Compendium will be:

pean Commission for the mutual benefit of
both;
I
• the Member States, including the regions
and local authorities: for example when mak-
ing proposals for policies and programmes
• as a complex and potentially very broad
area of work, limits will have to be placed on
I
the extent of its coverage, and these will
within the framework of Community policy,
implementing Community policy initiatives
or Directives, developing cross-border and
have to be decided at the outset, according
to the objectives and envisaged use of the
I
other transnational programmes; to enable Compendium;
decision-makers to see how Community or
other transnational policies and pro- • it must be built up step by step and not in a
I
grammes with a territorial impact can be • comprehensive way at once;
assimilated into national planning policies; I
• the European Commission, when formulat- • it will be set up as an on-going exercise,
ing policy initiatives and analysing their po-
tential impact on Member States' territories
requiring regular updating and a structure
that will enable the inclusion of new Member
States as the need arises;
I
and their implementation by Member States; •
to understand the context within which Di-
rectives, programmes and other aspects of
Community policies affecting land use will
• although the comparable basis of the Com- I
pendium is considered of utmost impor-
operate in practice in the Member States;

• the private sector: to give information on

tance, it will not evaluate the relative merits or
shortcomings of the different national sys-
tems, but focus on the facts and their impli-
I
procedures and regulatory and financial in-
struments for industries and private citizens
to make location and investment decisions
cations in practice.
I
within the Community;

• for public interest groups: to give general 4. Scope and Coverage I

information about policies and practices in
other countries which might be of use in
reviewing policies in their home country.
The Compendium will be concerned with spa-
tial planning and development in the widest
I
sense (strategic, regional and physical, land
For all four groups, a particularly relevant use
will be in cross-border planning exercises,
whether in cooperative ventures - to know the
use planning). It will have to deal not only with
the "Physical Planning Acts" (or their equiva- I
lents), but also with other legislation and pro-
planning procedures in the countries con-
cerned within the framework of. which such
ventures must take place - or in assessing
cedures directly affecting the spatial distribu-
tion of development at national, regional and
local levels of government.
I
the potential transnational impact of planning
policies and procedures on a neighbouring
country. However, it will not be possible for the Com-
I
pendium to cover all aspects of sectoral legis-

3. Principles of Approach .
lation and policies having an impact on spatial
development, such as in the fields of transport, I
environment and energy. These and other
A number of facts and principles will determine.
the content and the working method of the
Compendium:
closely related policy areas must also be
looked at in terms of their relationship with the
planning system.
I
I
162 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I 5. Elements of the Structure other matters of concern, or previous case
studies used cease to be relevant.

I Firstly, considering the diversity of user needs

and the need for flexibility in up-dating etc., the
6. Elements of the Content
most appropriate structure for the Compen-

I dium would be to have a separate section for

each Member State.
Introductory

I Secondly, a clear distinction will be made in the

Compendium between: Introductory aspects will include a brief analy-
sis of the development of planning insofar as it
has an influence on administrative traditions
I • planning systems, described in terms of their
general objectives, competences, legislative
and administration basis, plans, guidelines
and prevailing attitudes, the broad definition,
aims and principles of the planning system
and the constitutional, political and administra-
I and instruments, and procedures;

• planning policies, referring in terms to the

tive structure of government, the relevance of
closely related policy areas to planning, the
intergovernmental relationships, and the areas

I broad principles and objectives at national,

regional and local levels, in particular those
relating to Community policy and initiatives,
of competence in each Member State.

or having a transnational effect;

I • the implementation of policies through plan-
Planning Responsibilities

The Compendium will cover all levels of plan-

I ning systems in reality, by the use in particu-

lar of case studies.
ning administration, this in most countries be-
ing the three tier system of national, regional
and local levels. It will describe for each level:
This distinction will enable a step-by-step ap-
I proach to the preparation of the Compendium.
The first step will deal with the systems, legis-
• the main characteristics in each Member
State's system:
lation and responsibilities; a second step will
I identify policy interests; a third step will involve
the choice of case studies to illustrate how
• the legislative basis of planning

things proceed in reality. • legal and financial instruments

I It is also important with regard to up-dating. • the plans/guidelines (form, type, coverage,
Although planning systems do adapt to new content, status and authority, function, char-
I circumstances, the first part of the Compen-
dium would retain its value for a reasonable
acteristics, procedures for preparation and
approval, review and time taken, relationship
period - some 5 to 10 years - without having with and/or authority over other policy ar-

I to undergo a major revision unless circum-

stances in a particular Member State made it
eas).

necessary to do so for that country alone. The • powers and responsibilities etc.

I part on planning policies would necessarily

have to be revised and up-dated more fre-
quently, say once every two years, with Mem-
• the implementation of planning policies

I ber States reporting new policies or shifts in

existing policies. The third part on implemen-
tation in practice will be revised and up-dated
• the regulation and control of development

• public/private partnerships
as frequently as deemed necessary, as new
I major forms of development or policy initia-
tives arise following Community, Initiatives or
• other planning instruments (regional devel-
opment, National parks etc.)

I
Appendices 163
I
I
 I
• how the national systems can handle the competences of local authorities and their
I
assimilation of Community policies into the degree of autonomy in determining policies
national territory. and their implementation. •
I
The Compendium will also describe the inter- The precise limits will have to be determined at
actions and interrelationships between the dif-
ferent levels of planning administration, deal- •
ing in particular with:
the start of the project, with reference to useful
literature and addresses of contacts as a
mean.s of avoiding excess detail.
I
• the degree of independence and autonomy;
Issues and Policies
I
• procedures (coordination, checks and bal-
ances, public participation etc.}. Current issues and policy developments will
be described for each level of administration.
I
The Compendium wili be of interest to users of
all three principal levels of government. The
national, regional and local levels will be im-
Of particular importance to a Community plan-
ning Compendium are the transnational issues
I
portant for public authorities; the local level is and policies. It will therefore identify those
likely to be of great interest to the private
sector, when deciding for instance where to
current and emerging issues and policies of a
transnational nature at whatever level they
I
locate a new investment within the Single appear:
European Market.
• in a neighbouring Member State or external
I
Due attention will have to be paid to the border country as a result of developments
question of differences between the compe-
tence and geographical scale of administrative
or policies within the country;
I
levels in the different Member States. In some • within the country as a result of develop-
Member States, smaller geographical units
have greater planning powers than larger geo-
graphical units in neighbouring states. Federal
ments or policies in a neighbouring Member
State or external border country (for example
a major proposal for a nuclear power sta-
I
states have the additional problem of compa-
rable administrative units at the regional level
with different planning systems and policies.
tion)

• issues, policies and programmes of interest

I
The transnational aspects of planning sys-
tems, such as agreements on cross-border
public participation and consultation, are of
for networking and exchange between mu-
nicipalities, regions or Member States (for •
example the .results of research into the
I
particular importance. effectiveness of enterprise zones and urban

However, the Compendium cannot enter into

development grants). I
all sorts of procedural details or policies at • transborder areas where cooperation was
every regional and local level: being planned and greater clarity was re-
quired on matters of mutual concern or
I
• at the regional level, especially in Member competences on either side of the border.
States with a federal structure, the approach
will be to describe the planning system and Lastly, the Compendium will deal with issues
I
policies with a) in one region, or b) in a and policies relating to the Community as a
"typical" region, and to refer to variations in
policies and procedures in other regions;
whole. It will identify current and emerging
issues and policies at whatever level in the I
Member State which could potentially affect, or
• at the local level, the approach will be to
describe the principle features of the plan-
ning system at that level, in particular the
be affected by, emerging EC policies of a more
general nature. The relationships between
Community regional policy and planning poli-
I
I
164 The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies
I
I
I
I cies in the Member States at national, regional Terminology
and local levels is of particular interest.

I Case Studies
The Compendium will clarify the problems of
terminology which are increasingly evident in
the Community. In every Member State, the

I In order to illustrate how the planning systems

operate in practice, which is sometimes differ-
characteristics of its planning system and tra-
ditions determine the meaning of the different
terms used in the planning profession. It is,
ent from the intentions of the original laws and therefore, vital that the Compendium includes
I regulations, and how planning policies are
actually implemented within those systems,
a glossary, describing the meaning of the most
important terms being used in each Member
case studies will be used. They will be used for State, and not attempting to translate terms
I illustrating the interrelationships of policy im-
plementation between different levels of ad-
from one language to the other.

ministration, in particular concerning Commu- The Compendium will also contain reference
I nity policy, as the impact of this is usually not
dealt with in existing national planning sys-
to more detailed sources of information and to
contacts and addresses where more detailed
tems. Case studies could also help provide a information can be found.

I better understanding.for example, of differ-

ences in Member States between similar types
of development (for example business parks), General Analysis

I investment (for example infrastructure) or plan-

ning situation (for example declining rural ar-
eas).
With every update of (a part of) the Compen-
dium, a brief non-judgmental analysis will be

I Case studies will be selected carefully, to

ensure that they are sufficiently typical of the
made in order to identify certain emerging
evolutionary tendencies (for example towards
more flexibility, more or less political interest,
operation of planning systems in Member greater decentralisation etc.) within the Com-
I States. munity.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendices 165
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I Illustrations
of planninginstruments
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
167
I Illustrations of planning instruments
I
I
ILLUSTRATIONS
OFPLANNING
INSTRUMENTS
I Maps, plans and diagrams are essential tools for rate on points made in the Compendium text.

I planners. Most planning instruments include

some form of map or diagram which expresses
the essential spatial dimension of planning poli-
The illustrations have been selected to show
typical plans for each main category of instru-
ment. Further examples of planning instruments

I cy. The following illustrations give a general

impression of the variety of forms of graphical
representation used. They also help to elabo-
are given in the country volumes, and include an
explanation of their form, content and procedure
for adoption.

I
NATIONAL
SPATIAL
PERSPECTIVES
I Only a small number of countries have a nation- examples here go beyond description to elabo-
al planning instrument which gives an explicit rate on the preferred future development pat-
I spatial development framework for the whole
territory. Extracts from three national planning
terns. In the Danish case, there is a strong
emphasis on the relationships between the

I instruments are illustrated here - Denmark, the

Netherlands and Luxembourg. These perspec-
tives give a broad indication of the existing dis-
country and its neighbours, and the perspective
provides a basis for cooperation with other
countries in northern Europe. The Dutch

I tribution of urban structure, transport links and

natural areas needing special protection. There
are a number of other examples where spatial
Perspective, illustrated on the next page is the
most elaborate example. This is one of a num-
ber of maps which presents a national frame-
development patterns are illustrated in map work for growth and environmental protection in
I form within national statements on planning pol-
icy, such as Austria and Finland. However, the
some detail.

I
I 0
□
The 0resund region, Hamburg and Berlin

Danish cities with significant international relationships

I International traffic axes

Major traffic links

I Airports

Main highways

I Primary international high-speed rail line

Rail lines - 200 km/hour

I Ill Large natural areas of particular interest

I Ministry of the Environment 1992

I 1. DENMARK - Landsplan perspektiv

Development perspective towards the year 2018
169
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 urban node main transport axis water I
--·
,~·~.

*
international location climate main port

//, urban ring r-1.,,"-;

....,.
;-'

.----,
inland terminal
nature and/or tourist recreational
I
main transport axis road development zone
main transport axis rail (persons) ..:::::.__" further detailing

main transport axis rail (freight) L.J

physical planning-cum-environmental policy
area (ROM)
I
~l~ special areas of attention with respect to live-

2. THE NETHERLANDS - Vierde Nota Over de Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra

ability

I
170
I
I
I
I
I
I
I [I] High-level CDA

[j] Medium-level CDA

I [i]
[II
Well-equipped low-level CDA
Low-level CDA
() Elementary CDA

I "
□
Autonomous CD
One of a pair of CDAs

CJ Ettelbruck-Diekirch catchment area

I f >I Luxembourg city catchment area
~ Esch-sur-Al~ette catchment area
,,,,,--- CDA catchment area boundaries

I ==
¢=:
High-level AD
Medium-level AD
~ Internal AD

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 10
CD = development centre
CDA = development and attraction centre
AD = development axis

I 3. LUXEMBOURG - Programme Directeur d'Amenagement du Territoire (PDAT} -

Centres et axes de developpement
171
I
 I
I
I
I
I
• Agriculture
• Sylviculture
AACHEN
I
• Tourisme

I
• Act.tertiaires
• lndustrie

Major link completed

Major link planned
Trunk road
I
Rail line
NAMUR
State boundary
District boundary I
..... Canton boundary
Development region boundary
I
illlllllDIJConurbations
11P Small towns

I
I
I
• Act.tertiaires
• Tourisme
• lndustrie
• Agriculture
• Sylviculture
I
I
•Agriculture
• Viticulture
•Tourisms
•Act.tertiaires
•lndustrie
I
• lndustrie
•Act.tertiairtis
• Agriculture
I
•Tourisme

AUDUN
LE ROMAN
HAY ANGE
METZ
NANCY
10 15 km
I
4. LUXEMBOURG - Programme Directeur d'Amenagement du Territoire (POAT) -
Limites des regions d'amenagement et tableaux synoptiques des activites
I
172
I
I
I
I STRATEGIC-REGIONAL
INSTRUMENTS

There are a wide range of strategic-regional for green belt and areas of special landscape

I planning instruments. Four examples are given

here ranging from the very general to more spe-
value are indicated where new development is
strongly resisted. The diagram identifies key
cific in graphical representations, although it transport improvements but not their precise

I should be remembered that these maps are

usually accompanied by other documentation
and illustrations specifying policy and pro-
route. The allocation of new development is
shown but only by cross referencing the dia-
gram to the written statement. The written poli-

I grammes. All the illustrations here are reduced

from their original size.
cies indicate how much development is allocat-
ed to a particular settlement during the plan
period, but no locations are shown. Precise

I The first example is a structure plan from the UK

which gives very broad indications of policy
areas in a diagrammatic way. General locations
boundaries of areas to be protected, general
settlement growth and specific sites for devel-
opment are identified in lower-tier plans.

I
I
District Boundaries

Development Pattern

0 Towns.Main settlements &

Shopping Centres OP4,DP6,DP7

I .u,1111,,,,,._

lm,1111111,;
GreenBelt

Swindon Area Inset to

Key Diagram
OP12,C13.

I ■
Transport
Basic Rail Network
Rrulway Station
T2,T3.

Til(i).
National Primary Route

I Highway Network
County Distributor
Highway Network
By-Passes / Improvements
Tll[o).

T12,T13,T15.

I
Natural Environment

Areas of high Ecological Value C3,AET2,ws.

Salisbury Plain Training Area C4.

I r~~
Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty
~-------;New Forest Heritage Aree
C8,RLT10,
RET2,MSP3,W5.

C7,ATL10,AET2,RET3,
MSP3,W5.

I
Special Landscape Area C9,RET2.

Greet Westam Community C11.

Forest

Historic Environment

I Q World Heritage Sites

Recreation & Tourism

HE1,HE5.

Wilts & Berks & N. Wnts Canal, RLT4.

I Thames& SevernCanal
Kennet & Avon Canal
Ridgeway Path
RLT3.

Cotswold Water Park C6 ALTS.

I Other Policies
Policiesnot shownon Key
Diagram
0P1,DP2,DP3,DP5,DP7 ,DP8,DP9,
OP11,DP14,DP15,DP16,DP17,
T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,
T6,T7,TB,T9,T10,T14,T16,T17,
C1,C2,C3,C5,C10,C12,C13.
HE2,HE3,HE5,HE7
,RLT1,RLT2,RLT7
T18.

,RLT8,RLT9,RET1.
MSP1,MSP2,MSP3,MSP4,MSP5,MSP6,MSP9,MSPB

I
W1,W2,W3,W4,W6,W7.

5. UNITED KINGDOM - Wiltshire Structure Plan Key Diagram (Deposit Draft)

I 173
 I
I
The Swedish regional plan is based on a map
and thus the locations of new development are
and conservation. Future reserves of building
land beyond the plan period are also allocated,
I
identified more precisely, but again at only a very together with planned new transport routes
broad level with an original scale of 1:400,000.
Areas are identified for new urban development
including major roads, railways and light rail.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-__
Existingdevelopment

Existingroads
'--.~-.
+++-
..,
Existingrailways

ExistingMetro network
I
I
-..
~ Existingother rail links
Municipalboundary
County boundary

c:I Urban land

Larger new development

I
areas
mm Land reserves
I
----
1111]

.........
Conservationareas
New major road
New or modernizedrail-
way
New Metro line
I
--
-~
- -1
.1
New light rail link

Airport
I
6. SWEDEN - Regional Plan for Stockholm I
174
I
I
I
The third and fourth illustrations of regional- The final plan in this section is the Portuguese
I strategic instruments are more detailed. The
Austrian Landesraumordnungsprogramm has
Plano Regional de Ordenamento do Territ6rio.
This is a regional zoning plan, with an original
an original scale of 1: 50,000. This is a very scale of 1:100,000. All land is given a broad
I detailed instrument and defines specific loca-
tions, boundaries and land zonings which could
land use classification, for example, urban
zones, tourist development zones, mineral
be identified reasonably precisely on the ground extraction zones and agricultural zones. The
I using the map. The plan shows the planned
extent of the built up area; green zones to be
accompanying documentation sets out general
principles for each zone which should guide
protected; valuable landscapes and agricultural decisions on land uses and development within
I zones. This instrument is more detailed than
some of the framework plans that follow, but it
them, including the use of agricultural land.

operates over a much larger area.

I
~-- )' ' • ~::::.-·-,)

I ~... !-"...,~~"'·-· .\t.f.

~~.!.~...:·

)·1,,

I ;-,·'"35,

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Part of the key :
I -- valuablelandscape areas £ demarcationof settlement boundaries

I regionalgreen zones • water protection zone

agriculturalzones

I 7. AUSTRIA - Landesraumordnungsprogramm Lower Austria

"175
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
La110 8

I
I
I
I
8. PORTUGAL - Plano Regional de Ordenamento do Territ6rio do Algarve I
176
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Part of the key :
ZONING

I
I
-- Urban developmentareas
Urban areas

Touristdevelopmentareas

Natural areas and environmentalprotection areas

I Mandatoryland use

--
LJ Water system protection areas

I Agriculturalareas

Natureconservationareas

I Priority land use

-
D Agro-forestrydevelopmentareas

I Agro-forestryprotection/recoveryareas

-
D Scenic areas

I Natureconservationareas

URBAN HIERARCHY AND FUNCTIONS

I ■
Hierarchyof urban centres

Subregionalcentre

I Infrastructure

M Commercialport

I .,
existing
►
planned
Fishingport

I Communicationshierarchy

Communicationsnetwork

I existing
~
planned
~ c:=- Interregionalcommunicationslink

&&s;;;.;. Regionalcommunicationslink

I lntermunicipalcommunicationslink

I 177
 I
I
FRAMEWORK
INSTRUMENTS
- MASTER
PLANS
I
The examples shown here illustrate the variety such plans. The Danish Kommuneplan uses a
of graphical form from general to very specific.
The first example from Greece illustrates the
mixture of broad zonings for urban, commercial,
industrial and natural areas with symbolic nota-
I
way that such plans provide a summary of the tion. The German, Italian, Finnish, and Spanish
current spatial structure, allocate areas for fur-
ther urban growth, and designate zones for spe-
examples are more detailed, including, for
example plot ratios, building heights and differ-
I
cial attention such as for urban renewal. ent categories of residential development. The

The other examples in this section are shown as

Irish Development Plan is interesting because
the zones are linked to policy objectives, such
I
extracts of the plan at their original scale. This as to improve city facilities or protect residential
allows some comparison of the level of detail of amenities. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:;,,, ~-,.- limits of 1987
-............... statutory town plan

-- education :.~-~--·· primary trunkroad

~~-~--~~-~
protected zone of archaeologi-
cal and archltectural importance
I
r-~-~statutory

-
limits of 1982
town plan
sports ■·•-~II! proposed primary l limits of proposed operational
..... 11~
trunkroad planning zone
- town centre open and green space :....:_~:::-~J
I
~econdary trunkroad
development zone for small
extension of schedio
poleos Hflllffll
special uses IJ]) f1 railway •••• industry

.. zone designated for environmental upgrading zone

- neighbourhood centre residential use -~~ ...... .., renewal i?t?~
9. GREECE - Geniko Poleodomiko Schedio, Kozani
I
178
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Part of the key :
USE ZONING OBJECTIVES
l I Objective A 1
I
To protect and or improve resi- Objective F To provide for services, small
dential amenities scale manufacturing and distribu-
tion in the Inner City

.____I Objective A2 To protect and or improve the - ObjectiveH1 To protect the existing architectural

I amenities of residential conser-

vation area
and civic design character,to allow
only for limited expansion consistent
with the conservationobjective
~fl Objective C1 To provide for and improve - Objective H2 As H1 and To allow primarily resi-

I business and service centre

facilities (Inner City)
dential and compatible office uses
and institutional uses

I Objective D To provide for and improve city ~~1

centre activities
Objective K To preserve recreational amenity
including open space

I 10. IRELAND - Development Plan, Dublin

179
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Part of the key :
I
'··--•-+ -- ·-·
i
J
Private green areas with exist-
ing buildings
Reinforced hillside areas:
Reception activities
Services (letter = classification)
- Urban redevelopment areas:
(designated areas)

Services
Regulatedareas

l______

LJ
Residential R2
I
1-< ;
L:d
.i Woodland Residential

-
Residential R3

Residential R4
I
Tertiary activities and facili-
ties for personal and busi-
ness services

General interest amenities

I
(university, music academy,
etc.)
11. ITALY - Piano Regolatore Generale, Turin I
180
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Part of the key :
Odense municipal plan 1993-2005
I
--
Agriculturalareas (in

00
Office and services districts
rural areas)
Main centres
Port areas

I
-
Residentialand servicesareas
Local centres Villages,category i

-0
Open areas

I
--
Villages,category 2

-
(rural areas)
Central areas Outlying urban areas (in urban Protected areas

I Industrialdistricts

Light industry districts

areas)

Agr·1culturalareas of outstanding
ml}
(drinkingwater)

New business and

natural interest (in rural areas) servicesdistricts

I 12. DENMARK - Kommuneplan Odense

181
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13. GERMANY - Flachennutzungsplan, Berlin I
182
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Part of the key :
Building Areas

I Residential " Plot Ratio over 1,5

I Residential - Plot Ratio up to 1,5

I I Residential - Plot Ratio up to 0,8

I I
-
Residential - Plot Ratio up to 0,4

I Special Building Area - Capital City Functions

--
Special Building Area - Commercial Character

I Mixed Building Area, M1

I I I
Mixed Building Area, M2

Commercial Building Area

I l=I Concentration of Retail Facilities

Municipal Facilities
I 0 School

I 0 Culture

41 Energy

I Supply and Disposal

I ICJl/11
.. I Area with Commercial Character / Area with Mixed Character

I I_,1/ICJI Area with high % Open Space / Area with Agricultural Use

Open Spaces, water areas

I Green area

I
183
I
I
 ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
w I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--- 14. FINLAND - Osayleiskaava, Ankkurin, Lahti I
184
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Part of the key :
General plan, Lahti
Local plan, Ankkuri
I GENERAL PLAN - KEY
Local area key

I
- AK: Residentialarea
Predominantlyapartment buildings
Also restrictedspace for offices and services

I
I
- C: City centre
Space for offices and services;residentialbuildingssuit-
ed to the city centre area

C-1: City centre, with planned pedestrian links

-
Space for offices and services;residentialbuildingssuit-
ed to the city centre area
The.city layout is to be amended and other plans drawn

I up to preservecurrent pedestrianlinks between blocks

and providefor new public pedestrianlinks within blocks

P: Servicesand administrativearea

I Public and private servicesand administration

VL: Local recreationarea

Dailyrecreationaland sports activities

I n• To offer sports and other generalrecreationalamenities

in small buildingsand infrastructure,along with essential
facilitiesfor local traffic and parking space
Local woodland to be treated as park land

I Areas of water and timber bordering on open spaces to

be protected

LV: Water traffic area

I [LV
:1 Port and quay facilities;warehouse,terminal and service
areasfor port activity and shipping; and a lakesidepark;
also plannedfor other suitable water traffic activities

I I :J
LV-1
LV-1: Water traffic area, with quays reservedfor use by
local residents
Port and quay facilitiesand a lakesidepark and market,
with provisionfor other suitable water traffic activities.

I Quays predominantlyreservedfor use by local residents

W: Water area
w Area is reservedas a lake area. Special attentionto be

I devoted to maintainingthe highest possible water quality.

I
I 185

I
 ----

I
I
I
I
·,·~
I
,,
.. ·~
. ·,....., I
.'1;;

·~
• i SNl
I
• PA·

- e:,
I
I
i

'\
i
I
i
•

I
I
·, \ I
.Ii
fWI
I

15. SPAIN - Plan General (PGOU), Valencia

,,•. a I
I
186
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Part of the key :
Types of site

I SU
SUP
IIJ"I'
SU: urban site
SUP: site for which development is planned
SUNP: site for which development is not planned
SNU SNU: protected site

I ~ Site boundary

Designated urban development areas

I 1--1 Urban development area boundary

1----! Protected area boundary

I On urban site

I I CHP-1: Ciutat Vella

ENS: NEW DEVELOPMENT

I ID
IICI
Dl-1 ENS-1 : New development
1111111-1 ENS-2: Protected new development

ii..,. EDA: Open building

I
I :~:-,
UFA: Single-family home
. UPA•I UFA-1: "Cases de Poble"
UFA-2: Terraced

I
I
1- TER: Services

On sites for which development is planned:

.. PH

I
PRR: Planned for predominantly residential use

I PKT
PRT: Planned for predominant use by the services sector
Pill
PR!: Planned for predominantly industrial use

I
I
I
I 187

I
 I
I
REGULATION
INSTRUMENTS I
Regulation instruments provide for the imple- code of land use categories for zoning. For
mentation of planning policies by establis~ing
development rights through zoning, by enabling
example, UA designates central area uses. The
remaining examples (the Dutch Bestemmingsplan
I
public sector land acquisition, by directing pub- and the Belgian Plan Particulier d'Amenagement)
lic sector investment, and other means. This
sample of regulation plans illustrates a typical
show more detailed approaches with the charac-
teristics of each parcel of land identified sepa-
I
selection of these plans. The French Plan rately. The original scale of these examples have
d'Occupation des Sols (POS) uses a national been reduced by 50%. I
I
I
v~,
<'~•
I
....... 4J)
"--....::.
--- ........ .. ,.
....__
..
.......__
I
,,,,
,,
II

II
I
~-1-...p,,..,_,;~

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
16. FRANCE - Plan d'Occupation des Sols de la ville de Charleville-Mezieres (POS) I
188
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

--·
I Part of the key :

Municipal boundary

I L _I --,
Area boundary

I ~ Industrial area

e e e e I

Ie
• e • e
I
I
Sector boundary

I t
Protected woodland

I --
I Site reserved for public works, green areas,
street development

I
I ® Operation number

Specific architectural provision

I
I ZUP/ZAC boundary

I
I
I
189
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Part of the key :
USE
I
~ Single- and multiple-family residences
rmD Mixed construction
I
..
~

~
Multiple-family residences (Art. 11 of the
regional planning act)

Specific residential buildings

Specific uses
Im
lml
ml
Mixed construction

Passive recreational uses

Protected groundwater mining area I,

for passive recreational uses
I
~ Business buildings
mm Mixed construction and/or office space
I
IE]]] Businesses in the catering sector
ll=~*l=l1
Workshops

I
17. THE NETHERLANDS - Bestemmingsplan Stadscentrum Omgeving Kronenburgerpark I
190
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Part of the key :

RESIDENTIAL AREAS
I Terraced housing

Semi-detached housing

I Ancillary development

I Yards and gardens

Yards and gardens with common garages

I COMMUNITY AMENITIES AND PUBLIC

SERVICE AREAS

-
GREEN AREA
I Public green area

I 161
PUBLIC ROAD AND AREA
Public road and square

I 18. BELGIUM - Plan Particulier d'Amenagement a Court-Saint-Etienne (PPA)

I 191
I
I
I European Commission

The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

1997 - 192 pp. - 21.0 x 29.7 cm

ISBN
92-827-9752-X