Provisions on requirements for a specific order in zoning plan
Supreme Court judgment 4 May 2021, HR-2021-953-A, (case no. 20-130070SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.
Selvaag Bolig Bispelua AS (Counsel Kristian Korsrud), Boligprodusentenes Forening (intervener) (Counsel Pål Grønnæss) v. The State represented by the Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation (The Office of the Attorney General represented by Kristin Hallsjø Aarvik)
Justices: Indreberg, Bull, Bergsjø, Falch, Thyness
In connection with rezoning of an area of approximately 22 decares for housing development, Oslo municipality required a specific order for the upgrading of hiking trail near the planning area, see section 12-7 (10) of the Planning and Building Act. The decision was affirmed by the county administrator. In a case dealing with the validity of the county administrator's decision, the Supreme Court's majority of three justices found that section 12-7 (10) had to be interpreted to mean that where the municipality itself is not intending to implement the measure, requirements for a specific order may only be set to meet real needs triggered or intensified by the relevant development, or to remedy the disadvantages resulting from the same. There must be a relevant and close connection between the measure and the development project before it is legitimate to require that the development project is carried out in a specific order. Such requirements cannot be made to meet needs and goals of a more general nature. The county administrator's decision had thus reflected a wide interpretation of the provision. The Court of Appeal's judgment, given in favour of the State, was set aside. Dissent 3-2.