Two out of 24 owners of properties eligible for building in the territory of the Municipality with basic designated use SSse – one- and two-apartment buildings – turned to the Ombudsman. These properties have been designated as such for 23 years^[1], i.e. since the adoption of the Decree on the Construction Plan of the Nova Depala vas Area (Decree on CP)^[2], but to date neither have received the communal infrastructure nor had an equipping programme adopted, which would constitute the basis for the inclusion of sewage construction in the Municipality’s investment plans. Consequently, the Ombudsman approached the Municipality on several occasions regarding these allegations.

Judging from the clarifications the Ombudsman received from the Municipality, which were in places unclear, the reasons for the delays appear to lie primarily in past demands of the Ministry of Infrastructure for the cancellation of the level crossing over the railway line; in the Municipality's refusal to assume the costs for the temporary insurance of the railway crossing; and in a past disagreement between the Municipalities of Domžale and Trzin in the area of common interest, namely the construction of a connecting road. In the Ombudsman’s view, the Municipality’s explanations do not support the conclusion that the Municipality acted efficiently in relation to the long period between the adoption of the Decree on CP until the recent actual movements.

The Ombudsman acknowledges that local communities enjoy a wide margin of discretion in the area of spatial planning, where they are generally not bound by strict deadlines for the implementation of individual phases of spatial development. However, this cannot serve as justification for concrete procedures to run indefinitely. This is indeed part of a broader problem concerning the excessive length of spatial planning procedures, in which decades may pass between the decision that construction on certain land is permissible and the actual ability to build. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman believes that, in many instances, procedures could be conducted significantly faster, provided that due diligence is exercised by the local self-governing body and other competent authorities.

A certain degree of progress can now be detected through the communicated preparation of a study and upon the presumption, based on the Municipality’s most recent reply, that the further procedure of infrastructure provision no longer depends on the arrangement of the level crossing. However, given that the Municipality did not clarify the estimated timeline for further action to the Ombudsman[3] and since more than 23 years have passed since the adoption of the Decree of CP, it must be concluded that the Municipality acted inefficiently in this procedure. It has violated the principle of good administration and has cast doubt on the realisation of the principle of legal foreseeability as a component part of the principle of the rule of law. Accordingly, the Ombudsman reiterates the above recommendation to the Municipality while the institution will, at an appropriate opportunity, also address the competent Minister on the broader issue of the excessive length of procedures for the preparation of spatial acts. 17.2-7/2023

_____________________________________________________

[1] With the Decree on Amendments and Additions to the Spatial Components of the Long-Term Plan of the Municipality of Domžale of 29/10/1997 (Uradni vestnik, 10-1997, p. 377, Article 5, I – Območje širitve Depale vasi), this previously agricultural area was intended to be incorporated into the regulated settlement area. In 1999, the owners of these properties financed the preparation of special expert studies for the construction plan (CP) for the adoption of the Decree on CP for the area marked “NOVA DEPALA VAS” for the properties in question. On the basis of the CP project and the previously mentioned expert bases for the Decree, the Municipality adopted the Decree on CP on 13/02/2002.

[2] https://www.domzale.si/objava/76067.

[3] In connection with the planned activities and the timeline considering the then foreseen future actions, namely the preparation of the study and the equipment programme, as well as potential adoption of the amendments and additions to the Decree on CP.