Search

In the 2009 EALD Symposium, a presentation and succeeding publication (Ekbäck and Kalbro 2011), identified situations where negative value effects for property owners, gener-ated by time-consuming infrastructure planning processes, were in conflict with Sweden’s commitments under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The publication ultimately triggered amendments in the legislation on planning, acquisition and compensation for national roads and railroads. In the present paper, new situations are identified where again the Convention’s articles for protection of property and the right to a fair trial may be violated. The topic analysed and discussed concerns municipal planning for development of the built environment, resulting in planning blight, i.e. a reduction of property values in a particular area resulting from expected or possible future development or restriction of development. The particulars of a case study are compared to the standard planning model and the generic situation where the proposed land use leads to a local depreciation of property values compared to current land use., DOI: 10.3218/4027-2, ISBN: 978-3-7281-4026-5, 978-3-7281-4027-2, QC 20201201

Part of book: ISBN 978-1-315-51165-8, ISBN 978-1-138-20151-4QC 20220620

QC 20160822

QC 20181010

QC 20150309

In the Swedish urban development system there seems to be a gap between the Planningand Building Act and the practice. The aim of the article is to empirically show how theSwedish planning process is conducted and to analyse whether the legislation can be betteradapted to practice. It could be concluded from the study that the Detailed Plan(detaljplan) in Sweden is no longer a plan, but rather an early “permit decision” for aspecific development project, which normally is initiated before plan preparation. Incombination with “aestethic design programs”, the Detailed Plan tend to be increasinglydetailed and the building permit examination serves no real function for the exteriordesign of the buildings. The question is then whether two decisions are really needed: botha detailed plan and a building permit in cases where the decisions concern in principle thesame thing. The proposal presented in the article is to use one “building decision” in orderto both obtaining a more efficient process, and avoiding the friction that sometimes occursin the coordination between the Detailed Plan and the building permit., QC 20150309

QC 20150623

QC 20150309

Stora delar av den mark som kan användas för bostadsbebyggelse ägs av kommunerna. Hur kommunerna hanterar sina markområden är därför en central bostadspolitisk fråga. - Finns det brister i kommunernas markhantering som begränsar bostadsmarknadens effektivitet? - Vad kan kommunerna göra för att främja konkurrensen bland byggherrarna och förbättra bostadsbyggandet?, QC 20140205

QC 20131210

Planning and building legislation is often subjected to criticism – in Sweden and in other countries – especially in terms of process complexity and time. Legislation has a limited steering capability. It can be exemplified by studies where it was found that the practical application of planning provisions in detailed development plans (Caesar and Lindgren, 2009) and development agreements (Kalbro and Smith, 2008) often are outside the intentions of the legis-lation. We can thus find a gap between legislation and practice also in Sweden (Kalbro et al., 2012). Obviously, such a gap is not good for several reasons. It creates both legal uncertainty and lack of predictability., No ISSNQC 20131210QC 20220712

QC 20131212

QC 20140205

QC 20140204

QC 20131218