Suspension of the Binding Regulation of the Local Government Council of Ropaži Municipality is Justified
On Friday, 5 December, the Constitutional Court delivered its judgement in case No. 2024‑33‑05. The Court recognised the order by the Minister for Smart Administration and Regional Development on suspending the binding regulation of the local government council of Ropaži Municipality as being compatible with the Spatial Development Planning Law. The Court underscored that a local government’s spatial development required systematic and rational rather than hurried planning, taking into account all impacted interests, inter alia, nature protection.
The case was initiated on the basis of an application by the local government council of Ropaži Municipality. By the contested act, the Minister for Smart Administration and Regional Development had suspended the binding regulation of the local government of Ropaži Municipality by which the local plan for immovable properties “Remeikas-1” and “Remeikas plānotie grāvji” in Suži, Garkalne Rural Territory of Ropaži Region had been approved. The Applicant holds that its competence to plan its spatial development had been unfoundedly restricted.
The Ministry of Smart Administration and Regional Development holds that the spatial plan does not envisage sustainable solutions, allows for the expansion of the existing environmental pollution in historically developed areas and is incompatible with the spatial of Garkalne Municipality, which envisages mandatory connection to centralized water supply and sewage networks in the specific territory. Thus, the spatial plan does not follow the aims, defined in the local government’s sustainable development strategy either, i.e., to reduce environmental impact, to improve water management, and to reduce construction outside centralised engineering networks.
The Constitutional Court also pointed out that spatial planning was an important tool, which determined how land would be used in the particular territory, how infrastructure would be developed, and public welfare promoted. Local governments play a significant role in this process, since they are the ones that have the best knowledge of the local needs, resources, and development potential. Spatial planning should be done successively, to prevent chaotic and uncoordinated actions and to ensure that each more specific and accurate decision on planning promotes the spatial development into the previously defined general direction.
The Court drew attention to the fact that the local government’s sustainable development strategy set out the general direction of spatial development, whereas the task of the local plan was to materialise this direction in a specific place. If the strategy determines a specific type of development in a specific place then the local plan cannot be contrary to it, otherwise the sustainable development strategy would turn into a formal long-term spatial development planning document, which would lose its practical importance and become meaningless. If a local plan is found to be inconsistent with such territorial development planning documents as the spatial plan or a sustainable development strategy, its suspension is not only legally justified but also necessary. This promotes compliance with the principles of spatial development planning, including the principle of mutual coordination, encourages consistent spatial development planning, and ensures the practical implementation of the objectives of the Spatial Development Planning Law. By suspending such a local plan, the supervisory institution, in fact, restores the balance within the system and protects the legal stability of spatial planning. Spatial development may not increase environmental risks, aiming to reach only economic objectives and, thus, deteriorating the environmental conditions, rather, it requires preservation of and respect for values of nature and, even more so, promoting their positive development.
Thus, the Constitutional Court found that the Minister had complied both with the competence, defined in legal provisions, and, in general, the procedure for supervising the legality of a local government’s actions. I.e., in the particular case, the suspension of spatial plan had been necessary to prevent irreversible consequences for environment and spatial development. If the local plan had been applied before the legal review of its content had been completed, construction works, building of infrastructure would have been commenced, as well as other actions would have been taken that, essentially, do not meet the aims and requirements set in the local government’s development strategy and the spatial plan of Garkalne. Hence, the contested order, by averting the aforementioned risks, serves as a measure for ensuring qualitative and legally substantiated supervision of the planning process.
In view of the identified incompatibility of the solutions included in the spatial plan with the requirements set in regulatory enactments, the Constitutional Court recognised that the infringements made in the spatial plan were significant and that its suspension had been justified.
The Constitutional Court’s judgement is final and not subject to appeal, it will enter into effect on the day it is published in the official publication “Latvijas Vēstnesis”.