The Role of Spatial Plans Adopted at the Local Level in the Spatial Planning Systems of Central and Eastern European Countries

Abstract

Highlights: Most CEE countries have at least two types of spatial plans at the local level. In every CEE country, at least one type of spatial plan is a universally binding legal act. A recurring problem in them is the appearance of barriers to the interpretation of planning provisions. Differences can be found across CEE countries, in relation to the role of spatial plans. A problem is the differentiation of the contents of the different types of plans. What are the main findings? There are major analogies in the countries studied regarding the legal formula of local spatial plans and the practical problems involved. The implementation of the spatial plans into other acts is a serious challenge in the countries studies. What is the implication of the main finding? A practical debate is needed on the optimal formula of spatial plans, based on the experience of the countries studied. It is necessary to develop an interdisciplinary discourse to help implement the findings of the plans more widely. The article deals with the issue of spatial plans at the local level. The aims of this paper are (1) extracting the characteristics of local spatial plans that can be compared more broadly (2) identifying, on this basis, the role of spatial plans at the local level in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). In achieving these aims, the authors have critically examined spatial plans and their performance, as well as the planning systems they belong to. Hence, they have investigated the types of local plans in each country, their legal features, and the layout of their content. This examination has revealed a host of problems in the workings of the CEE planning systems. The article highlights those spatial planning issues that could be the subject of more in-depth international comparisons. The study provides additional evidence that in countries where spatial plans are legislated, there are more (mutually differentiated) legal problems in their application. Such problems have been analyzed. Besides procedural problems, discrepancies between the contents of different types of plans (e.g., general plans and detailed plans) are very often a problem. The paper also proposes a novel method for detailed comparisons of selected aspects of spatial plans. It can be applied to a large number of countries and also to other aspects of spatial planning. Last but not least, the paper emphasizes the need for a detailed multi-stage consultation of each aspect to be compared.