news reported earlier in January about the hiking trail in Sogndal, which turned out to be a two-lane road on closer inspection. An inspection report is now on the table for the municipality, which must collect responses from the developer and then conclude with an appropriate penalty or no penalty. The problem is that developers and “judges” are almost the same. Sogndal municipality owns 64.28 percent of Sogndal Skisenter, which has built the trail. Fredrik Holth, lecturer in legal subjects at the Department of Property and Law (NMBU), therefore encourages the State Administrator to get involved and “make sure” that the municipality follows up the case as the law says. – It would be very strange if the state does not see to it that this case is followed up, he says. He adds that the municipality should consider reporting the path to the police. Økokrim has stated several times that the threshold for environmental crime is lower than what most municipalities assume. On Monday, the Nature Conservation Association announced that they are going to court to prevent the construction of a new forest road in Sørmarka outside Oslo. – The state must see the municipality at a glance news has been in contact with several experts on municipal and administrative law who point out that the state should know its visiting hours in Sogndal. In all, it is about three grants of land: Double roll to the municipality as “buck” and “oatsack”. The seriousness of the case That it was the State Trustee who asked for the inspection and who “got the ball rolling” – Too passive to bet on the municipality following up Christian Steel, Sabima – It is too passive for the State Trustee to bet on the municipality following up on the case. The state administrator has both a statutory duty to supervise the work in the municipalities, especially statutory inspection, and in addition a role in guiding and helping the municipalities to achieve national targets for nature. A long series of evaluations, including a review delivered by the OECD in spring 2022, show that Norwegian nature management is not meeting targets. Katharina Karlsen Hessen, head of the Naturvernforbundet in Indre Sogn – The state administrator must ensure that this case is thoroughly followed up, but primarily this is Sogndal municipality’s chance to show good judgement. I strongly believe that they are now doing so, and that they know how many eyes are now directed at Rindabotn as a torch-bearer for the legal protection of nature. We also expect the municipality to look at its own plans for community development, land use and natural diversity, and let them manage a possible process whereby developers can apply for permission after development. The area where developers have established illegal infrastructure is a surveillance zone, and particularly vulnerable to intervention. Fredrik Holth, Department of Property and Law – Vulnerability in administration is linked, first of all, to the knowledge we have of the legal rules. Here, in my view, there are shortcomings in the administration, but also among the actors who carry out work and take responsibility for ensuring that the rules are followed. Secondly, there is a vulnerability in the system with regard to whether the knowledge of the effect of the various measures is good enough when permission is granted. Thirdly, there is a vulnerability linked to whether we have effective control systems. Without having in-depth knowledge of the hiking trail, the case shows, in my view, that the administration often takes far too lightly the assessment of whether various measures require a regulatory plan before measures are implemented. This is often required for larger measures such as housing development, sports facilities and the like, but rarely for various forms of arrangements and measures in areas that are not intended for development. – This case is so serious that the state administrator must get involved and not leave this to the municipality alone, says Ernst Nordtveit, who is professor of jurisprudence at the Faculty of Law (UiB). He calls it “a cross of thought” that the legislation is “crammed” with rules of competence at personal level, while intersecting interests at municipal level are not as strictly regulated. – We are a pragmatic people who know how to find practical solutions. But this model has weaknesses, he says. Other experts news has been in contact with say it is the state’s right to stay away – for now (see below). – It is logical that the municipality follows up and reacts Signy Irene Vabo, Department of Political Science (UiO) – Governing power rests with the municipality. It is therefore logical that it is the municipality that follows up and reacts. In line with the principle of local self-government, it is also logical that the state administrator only considers pursuing the case after the municipality has made its assessment. Eivind Smith, Faculty of Law (UiO) – The question of follow-up in such cases is about the same regardless of whether or not the “offender” has municipal ownership interests. Vigdis Vandvik, Department of Biosciences (UiB) – I expect the municipality to follow up here. As it stands now, this is ongoing damage, there is potential for further natural damage through increased future driving into the area, and through the fact that it gives a signal to the residents that the regulations of the municipality, or limited dispensations, do not need to be respected. Reduction of the intervention and orders for the restoration of destroyed areas would be natural. If the municipality does not respond adequately, I expect the State Administrator to intervene. The “Green trail” hiking trail in Sogndal runs from the lift house at the Kalvavatni lift up to the top of the lift. Photo: Sogndal municipality In 2016, the Municipal Law Committee discussed whether there should be stricter requirements for the municipalities when they carry out inspections, and in the new Municipal Act (passed in 2018) there is a requirement that all municipalities must prepare an overview of all businesses in which they have ownership interests. – This case gives reason to draw attention to municipalities’ handling of ownership management vis-à-vis companies that they wholly or partially own, says Sigrid Stokstad at the Department of Public Law (UiO). In 2016, she belonged to the minority in the committee that did not wish to legislate a rule on neutrality and equal treatment where the municipality can play a dual role. – I still think it was sensible, she says to news. She adds: – But there is a dilemma linked to the municipalities’ role as supervisory authority where they have their own interests in the business being supervised. At other times, Norwegian municipalities have to supervise their own “competitor”, such as in the nursery sector. Here, Vågsøy municipality started the work of filling in the lake, without having a permit. Photo: Harald Kolseth / news Kommune report yourself to the police Professor at the Faculty of Law, Hans Petter Graver, says the development since the 1980s with increased tendering and more public/private cooperation has “blurred boundaries” and made supervision more difficult. – The hiking trail in Sogndal illustrates this by the fact that the municipality has taken on a dual role. Normally, a public governing body should not have its own interests in the implementation of public supervision, he says. In 2020, Kinn municipality reported itself to the police. The reason was that the former Vågsøy municipality, which later became part of Kinn, had dumped large quantities of stone in the sea without a permit. – If it had been a private contractor who had done the same, we would not have hesitated to report the case to the police, explained the municipal director. The public prosecutor issued an indictment before Christmas. The case will go to court in March. Environment Director at the State Administrator in Vestland, Kjell Kvingedal, refers to the story from Kinn as an example of Norwegian municipalities conscientiously following up the Planning and Building Act. He says to news that “for the time being” he will not do anything towards Sogndal municipality, but “wait for their next step”. – Shouldn’t it pay to build first and apply afterwards – It is too early to answer what the consequences will be, says Åsmund Veigel Gaukstad, who is head of planning and administration in Sogndal municipality. To news, he characterizes the balance between protection and facilitation as “demanding”. – It is therefore important that we get an application in place in which concrete assessments have been made, which ensures a good handling of the case where we can take a position on the various interests and values in the area. On a general basis, it should not be worthwhile to build first and apply afterwards.
ttn-69
The state will not intervene against the “hiking path” in Hodlekve in Sogndal, which turned out to be a two-lane road – news Vestland
