Strandskyddet
The first regulation concerning the protection of shores was introduced in 1950. The purpose of that regulation was to "secure the general publics condition of an outdoor life". The protection has been sharpened over the years and in 1975 a general protection of the shores was introduced, which mean...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Otro |
| Lenguaje: | sueco sueco |
| Publicado: |
2006
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/11929/ |
| _version_ | 1855571967824887808 |
|---|---|
| author | Pettersson, Anna |
| author_browse | Pettersson, Anna |
| author_facet | Pettersson, Anna |
| author_sort | Pettersson, Anna |
| collection | Epsilon Archive for Student Projects |
| description | The first regulation concerning the protection of shores was introduced in 1950. The purpose of that regulation was to "secure the general publics condition of an outdoor life". The protection has been sharpened over the years and in 1975 a general protection of the shores was introduced, which meant that all land was protected within 100 meters from the shoreline. In 1994 a supplement was made with the purpose to "preserve good conditions for animal and plants on land and in water".
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did an inquiry of the shore protection regulations commissioned by the Government in 2001. The inquiry pointed out that there were big lacks in the exemption decisions. This concerned for example lacks in the attached maps and lacks in the basic data for decision-making, data that is important to be able to assess the effects of buildings on the purpose of the shore protection. The second purpose of the shore protection to "preserve good conditions for animal and plants on land and in water" was particularly neglected. The inquiry also showed lacks concerning the particular reason for the exemptions. These reasons were often excluded or did not correspond with the preparation documents for the regulation. The constitution proposal indicate lacks in how the shore protection is applied as the most urgent because it can lead to an undermining of the shore protection in the long run. Referring to that, this review is mostly concentrated on the lacks in how the shore protection is applied.
The overall aim with this study is to attain knowledge of how the shore protection regulations have been handled in the county of Uppsala. The study is divided into three parts. The biggest part is a review of the exemption decisions for three different municipalities in the county of Uppsala. The starting point is a template in the review by the Swedish EPA. The municipalities in this study are Håbo, Uppsala and Östhammar. The reason for this delimitation is that these represent three different municipalities with different basic conditions. Håbo is an expansive municipality with a high number of inhabitants. There is a risk that a higher percentage of land is claimed when the population increases, which in turn could lead to more exemptions in areas with shore protection. The municipality of Uppsala is a big city with many inhabitants and there could be a risk that more exemptions are given in areas with shore protection if the population increases. The municipality of Östhammar has a lot of countryside and a lot of coast to the Baltic Sea and therefore a big share of land with shore protection. The review includes 36 decisions from Håbo, 116 decisions from Uppsala and 216 decisions from Östhammar. The time period for this study is from the year of 2000 to 2005. The reason for this time period is that it included sufficient number of decisions and at the same time it became a reasonable delimitation in relationship to the timeframe of the study. The second part of the study is a review of the detailed building plans where the shore protection has been annulled. Five detailed building plans were reviewed during the same time period as mentioned above. The last part is to make interviews with people in charge of handling exemption decisions to achieve a deeper understanding of the process.
The interviews showed that two out of three municipalities did not use a referral body for consideration. The municipality of Uppsala considers an increased communication between the municipalities as a way of improving the decisions, while the municipality of Håbo emphasizes more visits on the sites and a new nature conservation inventory. The municipality of Östhammar wanted more guidance about what to consider when these types of decisions are involved.
A problem that was brought to attention by this study was the fact that the presentation of the particular reason of an exemption sometimes was missing or was inadequate according to the legislation. The particular reason for exemption was presented in only 40 % of the decisions for Håbo. Uppsala and Östhammar presented this in as many as 86 % of the decisions. From the review it also came to light that there were lacks in formality or to be more precise - what a decision should include according to the Swedish EPA. To enable a follow-up of the decisions by the county administrative board as the supervising authority as well as the Swedish EPA, it is important that the decisions present different parameters in a satisfactory way. This would make it easier to get an overview of the lacks in the decisions. When the exemption decisions were reviewed it came to light that the amount of rejections were relatively small compared to the amount of exemptions. Of the total amount of commissions, 6-12 % were rejected. When it comes to the impact on outdoor life this parameter was presented in about half of the decisions for Håbo and Uppsala, while Östhammar presented this in 92 % of the decisions. The impact on animals and plants were presented in 20 % of the decisions for Håbo and Uppsala, while once again Östhammar presented this in as many as 96 % of the decisions. The municipality of Håbo presented national interest for outdoor life and nature conservation in 18 % of the decisions. Östhammar only presented this in 0,5 % of all the decisions and the municipality of Uppsala in 10 % of the decisions. The limitation of the piece of land was presented in 44 % of the decisions for Håbo municipality. The municipality of Uppsala presented this in only 11 % of the decisions while the municipality of Östhammar presented this in as many as 98 % of the total amount of decisions.
The problem with the presentation of the particular reason returns in the detailed building plans were the shore protection has been annulled. The reason is often not expressed in a satisfactory way. The particular reason is not evident in certain cases. Several times it is stated that annulations do not counteract the purpose of the shore protection, although this is only a basic condition and not a reason for exemption. The application for an annulled shore protection have taken place after the acceptance of the building plan in three out of five cases, which is not according to the advice from the Swedish EPA.
The idea with the shore protection is that it exists to protect the shorelines from being exploited. Due to the fact that the shore protection is a legislation characterized by a number of prohibitions and that it takes particular reasons to get an exemption shows that the legislation is meant to be applied restrictively. In spite of that there is a continued exploitation of the shorelines at the same time as there are big lacks in the management of the shore protection regulations. |
| format | Otro |
| id | RepoSLU11929 |
| institution | Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences |
| language | Swedish swe |
| publishDate | 2006 |
| publishDateSort | 2006 |
| record_format | eprints |
| spelling | RepoSLU119292017-11-15T12:34:36Z https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/11929/ Strandskyddet Pettersson, Anna Landscape architecture The first regulation concerning the protection of shores was introduced in 1950. The purpose of that regulation was to "secure the general publics condition of an outdoor life". The protection has been sharpened over the years and in 1975 a general protection of the shores was introduced, which meant that all land was protected within 100 meters from the shoreline. In 1994 a supplement was made with the purpose to "preserve good conditions for animal and plants on land and in water". The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did an inquiry of the shore protection regulations commissioned by the Government in 2001. The inquiry pointed out that there were big lacks in the exemption decisions. This concerned for example lacks in the attached maps and lacks in the basic data for decision-making, data that is important to be able to assess the effects of buildings on the purpose of the shore protection. The second purpose of the shore protection to "preserve good conditions for animal and plants on land and in water" was particularly neglected. The inquiry also showed lacks concerning the particular reason for the exemptions. These reasons were often excluded or did not correspond with the preparation documents for the regulation. The constitution proposal indicate lacks in how the shore protection is applied as the most urgent because it can lead to an undermining of the shore protection in the long run. Referring to that, this review is mostly concentrated on the lacks in how the shore protection is applied. The overall aim with this study is to attain knowledge of how the shore protection regulations have been handled in the county of Uppsala. The study is divided into three parts. The biggest part is a review of the exemption decisions for three different municipalities in the county of Uppsala. The starting point is a template in the review by the Swedish EPA. The municipalities in this study are Håbo, Uppsala and Östhammar. The reason for this delimitation is that these represent three different municipalities with different basic conditions. Håbo is an expansive municipality with a high number of inhabitants. There is a risk that a higher percentage of land is claimed when the population increases, which in turn could lead to more exemptions in areas with shore protection. The municipality of Uppsala is a big city with many inhabitants and there could be a risk that more exemptions are given in areas with shore protection if the population increases. The municipality of Östhammar has a lot of countryside and a lot of coast to the Baltic Sea and therefore a big share of land with shore protection. The review includes 36 decisions from Håbo, 116 decisions from Uppsala and 216 decisions from Östhammar. The time period for this study is from the year of 2000 to 2005. The reason for this time period is that it included sufficient number of decisions and at the same time it became a reasonable delimitation in relationship to the timeframe of the study. The second part of the study is a review of the detailed building plans where the shore protection has been annulled. Five detailed building plans were reviewed during the same time period as mentioned above. The last part is to make interviews with people in charge of handling exemption decisions to achieve a deeper understanding of the process. The interviews showed that two out of three municipalities did not use a referral body for consideration. The municipality of Uppsala considers an increased communication between the municipalities as a way of improving the decisions, while the municipality of Håbo emphasizes more visits on the sites and a new nature conservation inventory. The municipality of Östhammar wanted more guidance about what to consider when these types of decisions are involved. A problem that was brought to attention by this study was the fact that the presentation of the particular reason of an exemption sometimes was missing or was inadequate according to the legislation. The particular reason for exemption was presented in only 40 % of the decisions for Håbo. Uppsala and Östhammar presented this in as many as 86 % of the decisions. From the review it also came to light that there were lacks in formality or to be more precise - what a decision should include according to the Swedish EPA. To enable a follow-up of the decisions by the county administrative board as the supervising authority as well as the Swedish EPA, it is important that the decisions present different parameters in a satisfactory way. This would make it easier to get an overview of the lacks in the decisions. When the exemption decisions were reviewed it came to light that the amount of rejections were relatively small compared to the amount of exemptions. Of the total amount of commissions, 6-12 % were rejected. When it comes to the impact on outdoor life this parameter was presented in about half of the decisions for Håbo and Uppsala, while Östhammar presented this in 92 % of the decisions. The impact on animals and plants were presented in 20 % of the decisions for Håbo and Uppsala, while once again Östhammar presented this in as many as 96 % of the decisions. The municipality of Håbo presented national interest for outdoor life and nature conservation in 18 % of the decisions. Östhammar only presented this in 0,5 % of all the decisions and the municipality of Uppsala in 10 % of the decisions. The limitation of the piece of land was presented in 44 % of the decisions for Håbo municipality. The municipality of Uppsala presented this in only 11 % of the decisions while the municipality of Östhammar presented this in as many as 98 % of the total amount of decisions. The problem with the presentation of the particular reason returns in the detailed building plans were the shore protection has been annulled. The reason is often not expressed in a satisfactory way. The particular reason is not evident in certain cases. Several times it is stated that annulations do not counteract the purpose of the shore protection, although this is only a basic condition and not a reason for exemption. The application for an annulled shore protection have taken place after the acceptance of the building plan in three out of five cases, which is not according to the advice from the Swedish EPA. The idea with the shore protection is that it exists to protect the shorelines from being exploited. Due to the fact that the shore protection is a legislation characterized by a number of prohibitions and that it takes particular reasons to get an exemption shows that the legislation is meant to be applied restrictively. In spite of that there is a continued exploitation of the shorelines at the same time as there are big lacks in the management of the shore protection regulations. De första bestämmelserna om strandskydd infördes 1950. Syftet var då att ”trygga förutsättningarna för allmänhetens friluftsliv”. Genom åren har skyddet skärpts och ett generellt strandskydd infördes 1975 vilket betydde att alla stränder var skyddade inom 100 meter från strandlinjen. Ett nytt syfte tillkom 1994 som innebar att ”bevara goda livsvillkor på land och i vatten för djur- och växtlivet”. Naturvårdsverket gjorde på uppdrag av regeringen år 2001 en utredning av strandskyddsbestämmelserna. Den påvisade att det fanns stora brister i de dispensbeslut som granskades, bl.a. fanns brister i kartmaterialet och brister i underlag för att bedöma en anläggning eller byggnads inverkan på syftet med strandskyddet. Bristerna var särskilt stora vad gäller strandskyddets andra syfte att ”bevara goda livsvillkor på land och i vatten för djur- och växtlivet”. Utredningen visade också på brister angående det särskilda skälet till dispens som saknades i många fall eller inte stämde överens med förarbetena till Miljöbalken. I författningsförslaget till ett förnyat strandskydd anges brister i tillämpningen som det mest angelägna eftersom det på sikt kan leda till en underminering av strandskyddets syften. Med hänvisning till detta så inriktar sig därför granskningen av dispensbesluten främst på bristerna i tillämpningen. Det övergripande syftet med studien har varit att få kännedom om hur strandskyddsbestämmelserna har hanterats i tre kommuner i Uppsala län. Studien är indelad i tre delar. Den största delen har bestått i att granska enskilda dispensbeslut för tre olika kommuner i Uppsala län med utgångspunkt från en mall i Naturvårdsverkets utredning. Dessa kommuner är Håbo, Uppsala och Östhammar. Valet av just dessa kommuner gjordes för att erhålla tre kommuner med skilda förutsättningar. Håbo kommun är en liten men växande kommun med hög invånartäthet. Risken finns att mer och mer mark tas i anspråk då befolkningsökningen fortsätter vilket kan medföra att en större andel strandskyddat område ges dispens för bebyggelse. Uppsala kommun är en storstadskommun med högt invånarantal och även här finnas en risk att strandskyddat område tas i anspråk då befolkningen ökar. Östhammar kommun är en glesbygdskommun med mycket kust ut mot Östersjön och därmed också stor andel mark inom strandskyddat område. För Håbo kommun granskades 36 beslut, för Uppsala kommun granskades 116 beslut och för Östhammar granskades 216 beslut. Arbetet har avgränsats till åren 2000-2005. Dessa år valdes därför att perioden inrymde tillräckligt många beslut för att få ett bra och hanterbart underlag och samtidigt blev det en rimlig avgränsning i förhållande till den tidsram arbetet skulle hålla sig inom. Den andra delen har bestått i att granska detaljplaner där strandskyddet upphävts. Fem detaljplaner blev föremål för granskning under den tidsperioden som nämns ovan. Den sista delen av arbetet har bestått i att utföra intervjuer med bl.a. handläggare av strandskyddsärenden för att få en djupare förståelse för processen. Av intervjuerna visade det sig att två av tre kommuner inte haft någon sakkunnig person som yttrat sig om friluftslivet eller djur- och växtlivet och beslutets påverkan på dessa. Uppsala kommun ansåg att ett ökat utbyte av erfarenheter mellan kommunerna vore önskvärt, medan Håbo kommun betonade fler platsbesök och en ny naturvårdsinventering. Östhammars kommun önskade mer vägledning om vad som är bra att tänka på vid den här typen av beslut. Ett problem som uppmärksammas av denna studie är redovisningen av det särskilda skälet till dispens som ibland helt saknas eller inte är i linje med lagstiftningen. Särskilt skäl till dispens redovisas endast i cirka 40 % av besluten för Håbo kommun. Östhammars och Uppsalas kommun redovisar båda detta i 86 % av besluten. Av granskningen framgick också att det finns brister i formalia eller brister i vad som enligt Naturvårdsverket bör ingå i ett beslut. För att Länsstyrelsen som tillsynsmyndighet men också Naturvårdsverket ska kunna följa upp ärenden så är det viktigt att besluten redovisas på ett tillfredställande vis. Det blir då lättare att få en överblick över var det brister i besluten. Vid granskningen av de enskilda ärendena framkom att andelen avslag är förhållandevis liten i jämförelse med andelen dispenser som ges. Andelen avslag utgör 6-12 % av det totala antalet ärenden. När det gäller påverkan på friluftslivet redovisas detta i cirka hälften av alla beslut för Håbo och Uppsala medan Östhammar redovisar detta i hela 92 % av besluten. Påverkan på djur- och växtlivet redovisas i cirka 20 % av besluten för Håbo och Uppsala medan Östhammar redovisar detta i hela 96 % av besluten. Håbo kommun redovisar riksintresse för friluftsliv och naturvård i 18 % av besluten. Östhammars kommun redovisar detta endast i ett beslut och Uppsala kommun redovisar detta i 10 %. Tomtplatsavgränsning redovisas i 44 % av Håbo kommuns dispensbeslut. Uppsala kommun redovisar detta i endast 11 % av besluten medan Östhammars kommun redovisar det i hela 98 % av det totala antalet beslut. Problemet med redovisningen av särskilda skäl återkommer i detaljplanerna där strandskyddet har blivit upphävt. Motiveringen är ofta inte uttryckt på ett tillfredställande vis. I många fall framkommer inte det särskilda skälet på ett tydligt sätt. Det anges allt som oftast att ett upphävande inte motverkar syftena med strandskyddsbestämmelserna fast det endast utgör en förutsättning. Ansökan om upphävandet av strandskyddet i detaljplaner har i tre fall av fem skett efter antagandet av planen vilket inte är i linje med Naturvårdsverkets råd. Tanken bakom strandskyddsbestämmelserna är att de ska finnas till för att skydda stränderna från exploatering och ingrepp. I och med att strandskyddsbestämmelserna är en förbudslagstiftning (d.v.s. det är förbjudet att uppföra nya anläggningar och byggnader enligt 7: e kapitlet 16 § Miljöbalken) samt att det krävs särskilda skäl för dispens visar på att lagstiftningen är tänkt att tillämpas med restriktivitet. Trots detta pågår en fortsatt exploatering av stränderna och det ges många dispenser från strandskyddet. 2006-10-09 Other NonPeerReviewed application/pdf sv https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/11929/1/pettersson_a_171115.pdf Pettersson, Anna, 2006. Strandskyddet : en översyn av tillämpningen i tre kommuner i Uppsala län. UNSPECIFIED, Uppsala. Uppsala: (NL, NJ) > Dept. of Urban and Rural Development (LTJ, LTV) > Dept. of Urban and Rural Development <https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/view/divisions/OID-595.html> urn:nbn:se:slu:epsilon-s-8849 swe |
| spellingShingle | Landscape architecture Pettersson, Anna Strandskyddet |
| title | Strandskyddet |
| title_full | Strandskyddet |
| title_fullStr | Strandskyddet |
| title_full_unstemmed | Strandskyddet |
| title_short | Strandskyddet |
| title_sort | strandskyddet |
| topic | Landscape architecture |
| url | https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/11929/ https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/11929/ |