No description available.

In 2009, the Swedish legislation regarding the administrative procedure applicable to onshore wind energy was amended, in part to increase wind power production, but also to fulfill the requirements in regard to the administrative procedures for renewable energy activities in the 2009 Renewables Directive. As a result, the dual permit and approval procedures under the Plan and Building Act and the Environmental Code were replaced with a procedure through which large onshore wind power installations are only assessed under the Environmental Code—and thus, only by the relevant County Administrative Board. In order to not circumvent the constitutionally protected and very strong principle of local self-governance of Swedish municipalities, the Swedish government introduced a provision in the Environmental Code, through which the municipalities were given a sort of veto over large wind power installations. According to Chapter 16 section 4, the municipalities’ consent is a prerequisite for granting licenses to large wind power installations. This provision has resulted in a number of issues concerning e.g. transparency and foreseeability. The municipalities do not have to justify or explain their decision, and the operators cannot appeal the decision in regard to its substance, but only in regard to certain procedural aspects found in the Swedish Local Government Act. There is also an issue with the possible non-compliance with Article 13 in the underlying RES-directive—an article that, ironically enough, was one of the main reasons for the 2009 amendment. The aim of this essay is to discuss the 2009 amendment and the problems that have surfaced in connection to the municipal veto, concerning, inter alia, the political goals of reaching a 100 percent renewable electricity production and increasing wind energy in the energy mix. The first three chapters deal primarily with the legislative background, i.e. de lege lata, with the occasional input from the author. The fourth chapter deals almost entirely with de lege ferenda discussions—mainly based on a report from the Swedish Energy Agency and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, in which the agencies suggest to altogether remove the provision from the Environmental Code. Other suggestions and alternatives are also discussed in this part. The chapter also contains a de lege lata description of the Danish administrative procedure, highlighting the Danish municipalities’ role in the Danish planning of wind energy. Lastly, in the fifth chapter, the conclusions are discussed briefly, with a suggestion from the author on how to proceed onwards.

Fram till år 2025 beräknas mellan 51 000 och 93 000 bostäder behöva byggas i Sverige varje år. Idag byggs inte ens i närheten av så många. Konjunktur är mycket betydande för bostadsbyggande men även detaljplaneprocessens effektivitet och hur fort detaljplaner kan tas fram påverkar hur mycket som byggs. Byggprocessutredningen och Plangenomförandeutredningen är två tidigare utredningar som försökt förbättra planprocessen. Utifrån dessa utredningar har frågan om privat initiativrätt aktualiserats. 2019 har en ny utredning gjorts för att se över behovet och förutsättningarna för detta. Samtidigt gäller kommunalt planmonopol som innebär att den fysiska planeringen av mark och vatten är en kommunal angelägenhet.Syftet med denna uppsats är därav att först jämföra planprocesserna i Sverige, Norge och England särskilt i fråga om den privat initiativrättens utformning. Därefter fokuserar frågorna på hur den svenska planprocessen kan utvecklas tillsammans med en utökad privat initiativrätt, vilka för- och nackdelar som kan finnas och hur intresset ser ut för ett införande från kommuner och byggaktörer. Delar i systemen i Norge och England som har en utmärkande del privata initiativ har studerats speciellt, rättare sagt planeringsunderlag och samråd. Uppsatsen omfattar en fallstudie för plansystemen i Norge och England med syfte att jämföras med den svenska planprocessen. Syftet med två jämförande länder var att kunna använda verkliga fungerande förslag på utvecklingsområden till den svenska processen. Både en dokument- och litteraturstudie har utförts. Detta för att sätta sig in ämnet och förstå grundläggande lagstiftning, bakgrunden till dessa och identifierade konsekvenser av detta idag. Den kvalitativa studien har inneburit 14 intervjuer med kommuner, byggaktörer och branschorganisationer.  Det svenska plansystemet på kommunal nivå innefattar en icke bindande översiktsplan och en bindande detaljplan utifrån vilken bygglov söks. Kommunen har planmonopol och bestämmer när ett planarbete ska påbörjas. För att försöka göra processen snabbare kan byggaktörer sedan 2011 begära planbesked och kommuner sedan 2017 begära planeringsbesked. I Norge har alla kommuner en kommuneplan som innefattar två delar, varav arealdelen är bindande. Områdesregulering och detaljregulering motsvarar den svenska detaljplanen, där detaljreguleringen får utformas av privata planintressenter. I England ansöks byggtillstånd utan detaljplan direkt på en icke bindande översiktlig plan.Intervjuer visade att samarbetet skiljer sig åt beroende på vilka kommuner eller byggaktörer som är inblandade. Utredningar, resurser, kompetens, finansiering och lagstiftning påverkar tidsåtgången. Utvecklingsmöjligheter anses finnas i detaljplanens detaljeringsgrad, samarbetet med bygglovsenheten, avvägningen av riksintressen och avtalsvillkor. Byggaktörerna anger att de vill ta mer ansvar i processen för att kunna påverka tidsåtgången. De delar i processen som utgör myndighetsutövning anses istället inte intressant att lägga på det enskilda. Transparensen, tydlighet och samverkan behöver bli bättre utifrån ett konkurrenssyfte. Hur privat initiativrätt ska fungera i praktiken, och om det är bra, finns det delade meningar om.Tidsfrister för hela planprocessen kan tillsammans med ytterligare utredningsansvar stärka byggaktörens kontroll över tiden. Resursbristen i kommunen bör underlättas när mer ansvar läggs på byggaktören. Mer betydande översiktsplaner anses öka transparensen och minska risken för förgävesplanering. En del av risken bör övergå till kommunen som utövar mest kontroll. Privat initiativrätt ställer högre krav på samarbete mellan kommun och byggaktör. Kunskaper och erfarenheter används bäst när de delas med varandra.Samarbetet och transparensen är viktiga faktorer som måste förbättras för att förbättra planprocessen. Det finns ett behov att privat initiativrätt om det bidrar till att processen går fortare. Det är dock svårt att se hur det ska fungera i praktiken, mycket pga. det kommunala planmonopolet. Fördelarna med privat initiativrätt är högre effektivitet, bättre samarbete, större rådighet över marken samt kontroll över risken för byggaktören. Nackdelarna är att konkurrensen blir sämre, visst merarbete uppstår för kommunen, risken ökar i tidigt skede för byggaktören och det görs intrång i planmonopolet. Privat initiativrätt kan framförallt utökas i utredningsskedet men även vad gäller utformandet av detaljplaner. / Between 51,000 and 93,000 homes need to be built in Sweden every year up until 2025. Today, we’re not even close to that. The business cycle is very important for housing construction, but so are also the efficiency of the detailed planning process and how quickly detailed plans can be developed, which then affect how much is being built. Byggprocessutredningen and Plangenomförandeutredningen are two previous investigations that previously attempted to improve the planning process. Based on these investigations, the issue of private initiative has been raised. In 2019, a new investigation has been carried out to review the need and conditions for this. At the same time, the municipal planning monopoly says that the physical planning of land and water is a municipal matter.The purpose of this thesis is therefore to first compare the planning processes in Sweden, Norway and England especially in terms of the right to private initiative in urban planning. The questions then focus on how the Swedish planning process can be developed through an expanded right of private initiative, what advantages and disadvantages it can lead to and if the municipalities and developers are interested in such an expansion. Parts of the systems in Norway and England, that have a distinctive part of private initiative, have been specifically studied, more precisely planning preparation and consultation. The thesis comprises a case study for the planning systems in Norway and the England with the aim of being compared with the Swedish planning process. The purpose of two comparative countries was to be able to use real, functional proposals on development areas for the Swedish process. Both a document and literature analysis have been performed. This is to get acquainted with the subject and understand basic legislation, the background to these and identified consequences of this today. The qualitative study has resulted in fourteen interviews with municipalities, developers and industry organizations.The Swedish planning system at municipal level includes a guiding overviewing plan and a legally binding detailed plan on which building permit is applied. The municipality has the planning  monopoly and decides when a planning work is to begin. In order to try to make the process more efficient, developers can, since 2011, request planbesked and municipalities can since 2017 request planeringsbesked. In Norway, all municipalities have an overviewing plan that includes two parts, of which one is legally binding. Områdesregulering and detaljregulering correspond to the Swedish detaljplan, where the second one may be designed by private plan stakeholders. In England, an application for planning permission are based directly on a guiding overviewing plan.Interviews showed that the cooperation differs depending on which municipalities and developers that are involved. Investigations, resources, competence, financing and legislation all affect the time schedule. Potentiality are considered to be found in the detailed plan's degree of detail, the cooperation with the building permit unit, the balance of national interests and contract terms. The developers state that they want to take more responsibility in the process simply in order to be able to influence the time spent. The parts of the process that constitute the exercise of authorities are not considered interesting to transfer to an individual party. Transparency, clarity and collaboration need to be improved on the basis of a competitive purpose. However, opinions are split on whether private right of initiative is a good thing, and how it will practically work.Time limits for the entire planning process, together with further investigation responsibility, can strengthen the developer’s control over the time schedule. The resource shortage in the municipality should be facilitated when more responsibility is placed on the developer More significant overviewing plans are considered to increase transparency and reduce the risk of planning in vain. Part of the risk should be transferred to the municipality that exercises the most control. Private right of initiative places greater demands on cooperation between the municipality and the developer. It is stated that knowledge and experience are best used when it is shared.Cooperation and transparency are important factors that must be improved to make the planning process more efficient. There is, in fact, a need for private initiative right if it contributes to efficiency in the planning process. However, it is difficult to see how it will work in practice, much because of the municipal planning monopoly. The advantages of private initiative law are higher efficiency, better cooperation, greater availability of land and control over the risk for the developer. The disadvantages are that competition gets worse, some additional work for the municipality arises, the risk increases at an early stage for the developer and there is an infringement of the planning monopoly. Private right of initiative can in particular be expanded in the investigation phase, but also regarding the design of detailed plans.

What is studied in this essay is how municipal self-government and the municipal planning monopoly can be affected for municipalities in Region Värmland if physical planning were to be regionalized in Värmland. There is a power shift going on in today´s situation, where the local is being moved more and more to the regional level. It is also a power struggle between who should control different thing. The purpose of the work is to find out how municipalities in Värmland will be affected if the physical planning were to be regionalized. Also how civil servants and their work regarding planning may be affected. This can be seen based on two dimensions that are applied in the study, the dimension of power and the dimension of activity, which can show differences and similarities exist between municipalities. The questions to be answered are:  - What effects and perspectives (pros and cons) do you think the working method can have for the interviewed municipalities if spatial planning is regionalized? -Does it matter if it is a smaller or larger municipality? -How is planning affected by this, what would be the consequences/problems for the businesses from more regional physical planning in Värmland?  Through qualitative interviews, respondents from eight municipalities in Värmland have been interviewed to answer how they think they will be affected if regional spatial planning were to be used in Värmland. The respondents work with relevant professions within community planning. The results show, based on four themes, divided unconditionally based on the respondent´s answers, how the municipalities and their respondents would be  affected. Among other things, the respondents lack responsibility from the region, resources and the municipalities conditions look different and depending on whether it is a small or large municipality it can look different. The local knowledge a municipality has is also important for municipalities, and municipal self- government is also something that municipalities think is important. Politics and democracy are important parts of how things should work. The conclusion shows that different effects and perspectives with pros and cons will affect the interviewed municipalities if spatial planning is regionalized. An important perspecitve is that power between municipality and region plays a role and also that municipalities today work in different ways and are therefore affected differently depending on their size, small or large municipality. The planning and activites will have several different consequences, both good and bad, knowledge and cooperation is something that will be able to improve the planning.