Studie av strandskyddsdispenser i Gävleborgs län : Jämförelse mellan länets kommuner

by Jonsson, Anders; Östman, Leif

The purpose concerning the protection of shores was introduced 1950 as a temporary legislation, were from the beginning only meant to “secure the general publics condition of an outdoor life”. In 1953 the legislation became permanent and have gone through some changes during the years. The main changes took place in 1975 when a general protection of shores was introduced for 100 meters from the shoreline. In 1994 a supplement was made with the purpose to “preserve good conditions for animal and plants on land and in water”. To have permit for e.g. build a house or to make some excavate in a specific area with shoreline protection, an permit to apply for exemption has to be made. The measure that causes an exemption had to be justified with a particular reason. From the beginning it was the county administrative board who issue a certificate, but since 1997 the municipalities of the county have been delegated. The problem with accordance of exemptions seems to cause a lot of ways to interpret the legislation and the municipalities seems to appraise in different ways. With our work that consist of questionnaire for all municipalities in the county, three chosen municipalities which are (Gävle, Sandviken och Söderhamn) for interviews and reviews of already accorded exemptions between 2002 and 2006, the intension was to check if there were any lack in the process with exemptions from the shoreline protection. All this just to prove the sense of an appraisal and design, so possible differences can be attended. Our work resulted in that many differences were discovered in as well as both appraisal and contents. Some facts that need to be add is that these three municipalities have different conditions, two are municipalities with coasts and one is a inland municipality. From Gävle municipality it was 154 decisions that were reviewed, from Sandviken municipality it was 62 decisions and for Söderhamn municipality it was 218 decisions. We saw that these differences had caused different results because the coast municipalities had more applications concern exemptions than the inland municipality. It appeared to be that the coast municipalities get’s a more even trend line in the diagram. The result of our work confirmed that there were differences in the judgement and design of the exemption decisions. These occurrences have to be looked at, so the purpose of the shoreline protection will not be undermined. The conclusion we made by comparing these different municipalities, was that Söderhamn municipality showed the parameters that we choose from the recommendations of The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) best. It resulted in that they had the most even results. Further conclusions are that the handling officers have great influence on the decisions.