Participation in the building permit process

concerned parties, such as neighbours, (8:22 PBA, The Administrative Court Procedure Act, 1971:291, section 10-12) which can attach a statement regarding their opinion of the permit application. This material takes part in the decision material of the committee. If someone, for instance a neighbour, wants to appeal an operators’ received permit decision, this is done at the County Administration, (Länsstyrelsen), chapter 13, s. 2, PBA. A right to appeal has,

according to general administrative principles (see s. 22 of Administrative Procedure Act 1986:223) those whom the decision concerns, if it goes against (has a negative affect for) them.

In the permit processes the key is if the complainant is a party concerned or not. And this is concerned in the legal sense, that if so, the appeal will be tried in substance. If not, the appeal will not be tried, no matter how legitimate the appeal in substance was. According to the Administrative Procedure Act (1986:223), section 22:

“A person whom the decision concerns may appeal against it, provided that the decision affects him adversely and is subject to appeal”.

Note that the decision needs to affect the complainant adversely. And when it comes to telecom masts this has been specified in legal practice. The PBA does not say who has the right to appeal according to the law. The preparatory legal work (governmental bill 1985/86:1 p 822) mention that such a regulation was suggested in the referral to the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet), but was taken out on proposal from the Council. The Council stated that from general principles that had been developed in court practice followed who had the right to appeal. In short, the Council preferred it to be sorted out in court practice, and the legislator agreed. And hence the regulation in section 22 of the Administrative Procedure Act is applicable, and court practice has to draw the exact line for who can appeal. And when it comes to the building permit practice it shows that a party concerned is owner of a property next to the property to which the building permit is tied, and owners to property in the neighbourhood that are especially affected considering the kind and extent of the building that the permit issues, the environment etc. (see RÅ 1992 ref 81 regarding appeal of permit to build a wind power station, and RÅ 2005 ref. 36).

In a case decided by the Supreme Court of Appeal on the 28 June 2006 the court found a property 350 meters from the mast site to be concerned. The four other properties that also appealed the mast permit were located between 650 and 950 metres from the mast site, and these were not found to be concerned by the mast permit, and therefore had no right to appeal (Case 722-05, 726-05).

The Blekinge permit process data shows that the line can sometimes be hard to draw for the County Administration. Of the 248 3G mast building permits 48 were appealed, which equal about 1 out of 5. This could includes both an operator that does not like the municipal’s denial of an applied building permit, as well as individuals who do not like the municipal decision of approving a building permit. Let us look a little bit closer at the 15 cases where the appeal was rejected, meaning that the factual matter was never tried due to the fact that the complainant was not by the County Administration found to be a party concerned in a legal sense. 12 of these 15 come from the same person. This is someone who really does not want 3G mats to be built in Blekinge and who does not live close enough to the planned masts to have a legal right to appeal. This person (as well as most other) is legally excluded from having a say in the legal aspects of the building permit appeal.

Table: County Administration decisions in appealed 3G mast permits, Blekinge

Frequency Percent

Not appealed municipal decision 200 80,6

Appealed but rejected/not party

concerned 15 6,0

Appealed, tried cause, but not approved 20 8,1

Changes municipal decision 13 5,2

Total 248 100,0

Of the remaining three rejected appeals one is where parents of children in a school neighbouring a planned mast site do not want the mast close to the children for several reasons. The County Administration finds that the parents can act as representatives for the children, but the fact that the children go to school near (70 metres) a planned mast site does not make them concerned parties in the sense of the law. This is a way to draw the line, and exclude the children, and the representing parents, from participation in the decision-making of this particular case. The right to appeal is often tied to owning property close to the permitted construction. The decision is assumed to be in line with existing law defined in legal practice of higher courts. The decision itself holds no such references. Another case regarded a base station where the equipment was located in a room in a building 300 metres from where the complainant lived. The County Administration found it too far to give a right to appeal. In the last of the three cases the complainant complained too late. The right of appeal is not only limited to concerned parties but, naturally, also in time.

In the case regarding a site on a small island, Aspö, outside Karlskrona in Blekinge the appeal was made by parents of children in a school 300-400 metres from the site, and a property owner neighbouring the site. The complainants were 17 families, of which many had children in a school near the planned mast site, with one person pleading their case. The person pleading lived 1,5 kilometres from the mast site, and interestingly enough the County Administration explicitly stated that by this fact have to be “considered to be concerned by the building permit in a way that it at least can be appealed by him“ (CA decision of 4 May 2006, p 2, author’s translation). Compare this to the properties 650 meters from a mast site not rendering in a right to appeal (although a case not yet decided by the time for the decision for the County Administration). This seems like a mistake by the County Administration, which also was corrected in higher court. This decision (of 6 May 2004) annulled the given building permit, and redirected the case back to the municipal building committee based on that the committee had failed to fulfil the conditions of sending information to concerned parties, and hence denied them their right to express their view. The County Administration in this decision “saved” the process for the complainants so that it could be tried once again, this time with the view of the concerned parties included. The fact is still that the line of who was found to be a concerned party was drawn extraordinarily wide in the case by the County Administration. This was also the grounds for the operator’s appeal to the County Administrative Court, although the court found that the decision of the County Administration was not possible to appeal because it had not changed the result of the case, it had only been redirecting the case to the municipal committee (12 Aug 2004). The concerned party question was therefore not tried. The wording might seem strange, since the outcome of the case had been changed, the permit had been denied and up for a new trial, however with the same result, a new mast permit was given by 10 Sep 2004. The permit was, not surprisingly,

appealed once again although the complainants had been surprised to see that they once again had missed the municipal information about the permit (15 Dec 2004).

This time the County Administration tried the appeal in fact but denied it (2 Feb 2005). The decision was appealed once again, and the County Administrative Court dismissed the appealing families stating that the fact that they visit a house nearby or have children in a school at 300-400 metres distance does not make them concerned in the eyes of the law as regards building permits, and therefore they have no right to appeal. The person living on the property next to the mast site was found to have the right to appeal, but the appeal was dismissed in the factual matter with the stating of that the court agreed in the judgment the County Administration had done (Case 221-05, 27 Dec 2005) – the permit did not be in conflict with chapter 2 of the PBA, or chapter 3, section 1 or 2 (not “significant impact”), or any other section of chapter 3 of the PBA.

The case illustrates how the participation in the decision if a 3G mast is to be constructed or not is formalized in law, defined by legal practice, and sometimes showing deviances in its legal application (the first appeal was tried, but could have been dismissed).

The PBA states that known concerned parties are by written notification be given opportunity to express their opinion on a building permit (chapter 8, section 22). This is an aspect of the inclusion and exclusion function of the permit process. When the municipal committee decides that there are no concerned parties to the building permit the information measures are limited to a message in the local press, instead of a letter, which is the case when the committee decides that there are concerned parties. The practice of when the municipal committees take this decision, and on what grounds, the Blekinge permit data base does not tell. This practice of the municipal building committees have been criticized by the environmental debater Gillberg for systematically only sending notification to the properties neighbouring the mast property while the expression “concerned parties” in a mast case can be wider than that (Dagens Nyheter 24 April 2004). This can be compared to the Supreme Court of Appeal decision of 28 June 2006 mentioned above, where 350 metres from the property and the mast clearly visible constituted the right for appeal. Gillberg’s point is that far more persons should be included in the permit process than is the case.

The permit process data of Blekinge shows that even if the concerned parties are allowed to participate, this hardly ever changes the final outcome, if the process goes above the municipal level. Thus the participation can be discussed in a formal sense and in a practical sense. Existing law may include a person but the application of the law may exclude the possibilities to affect the decisions, which then is shown in the study of cases, not in the study of the law. When the permit was given, an appeal no matter for what reason, hardly ever lead to a revoked permit. Of the 37 appeals that neighbours or other non-operators raised, only one lead to a denied permit in the end.

Table: Appeal compared to if final permit or not, Blekinge 2001-2004 Not appealed

Appealed by non-operator

Appealed by

operator Total

Finally a permit? No 44 1 7 52

Yes 141 36 3 180

Not yet

decided* 14 2 0 16

Total 199 39 10 248

* For a few cases this specific data is missing (if permit finally was given or not).

This may be a sign that the process may include people, but the process does not take any notice of what they say. It is a sign that what the appealing parts in the 3G infrastructure roll out think is an issue is rarely acknowledged as an issue legally. One reason may also be found in the municipal deliberative approach on building permit handling, many disputes can be solved by the parties communicating, and for instance a mast can be relocated in a less disturbing place for the neighbours, and hence never show up in the appeal data. From this perspective the appeal data shows cases that could not be solved communicatively, where the opinion of the appealing party differs too much from the one of the operators and the municipality that legitimates the building permit decision under the PBA and legal practice.

Of the 39 appeals from non-operators at least 30 mentioned a fear of radiation as part of the reason to appeal. This makes it a very common reason, indicating the importance and range of the radiation issue in Blekinge. Appeal based on radiation is always denied. Still, the radiation’s possible hazardous effect is a widely debated issue, and a common ground for appeal in the Blekinge processes, although never legally acknowledged. This is partly what is shown in the data in the table, and addressed further in next subchapter.

The discussion has so far regarded the participation aspects of the building permit. Other permits of relevance to 3G mast construction is utility easement under the Utility Easement Act, and the environmental consultation of chapter 12, section 6 in the Environmental Code, the so called 12:6 consultation. As mentioned, the right to appeal a decision is often tied to the fact that the complainant has a property that is considered affected by the decision (in a negative way – remember section 22 of the Administrative Procedure Act). Who is considered a concerned party is a bit wider in the PBA definition, which is clarified in chapter 8, section 22 where the Building Committee prior to the permit shall inform for instance “known affected parties and known co-operative tenant owners, tenants and affected residents … and provide an opportunity to give an opinion on the application” (Translation by The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning 2006).