The Supreme Administrative Court has given decision number 3080 on 13th October 2014 in a planning matter. In the decision the Supreme Administrative Court evaluated the relevance of an environmental permit when drafting a partial master plan even though the environmental permit had not yet gained legal force
The Municipal Council of Tuusula accepted the Rykmentinpuisto partial master plan in its decision 7.5.2012 § 48. According to the plan new residential areas were to be located nearby the Helsinki-Vantaa airport area on the aircraft noise area Lden > 55 dB marked on the appendix to the new environmental permit, which had not yet gained legal force. Finavia Oyj, amongst others, appealed the decision of the Municipal Council of Tuusula to the Administrative Court of Helsinki, which dismissed the appeals.
The decision of the Administrative Court of Helsinki was appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which gave its decision on the matter on 13th October 2014. The Supreme Administrative Court overthrew the decisions of the Municipal Council of Tuusula and the Administrative Court of Helsinki concerning areas AP (a compact single family residential area) and A-2 (a compact residential area).
The Supreme Administrative Court stated that according to the decision subject to appeal new residential areas were planned on areas where aircraft noise would, according to current reports, exceed the level of Lden 55 dB. The Supreme Administrative Court considered that construction allowed by the partial master plan on areas where aircraft noise would exceed the level of Lden 55 dB is at least partly something else than additional construction. The noise curves in the environmental permit application’s appendices have been included in the data of the decision subject to appeal. The relevant question according to the Supreme Administrative Court was, whether all relevant facts have been taken into consideration in an adequate way and in accordance with section 9 in the Land Use and Building Act when preparing the partial master plan.
In its decision the Supreme Administrative Court stated that the noise curves in the appendices to the environmental permit application should be considered as best available data regarding estimated air craft noise in these areas in year 2025. The air craft noise curves are such specific data that should be taken into consideration when drafting the local master plan. The Supreme Administrative Court considered that the legal validity of the environmental permit did not have significance in this case. The Supreme Administrative Court stated that when drafting the local master plan the opportunities for a healthy living environment, as stated in the Land Use and Building Act section 39 paragraph 2 subparagraph 5, were not adequately taken into consideration regarding the above mentioned areas. The Supreme Administrative Court partly overthrew the decisions approving the partial master plan, since the decisions were illegal concerning areas AP (a compact single family residential area) and A-2 (a compact residential area).
HPP assisted Finavia Oyj to appeal the decisions of the Municipal Council of Tuusula and the Administrative Court of Helsinki.
