The contemporary framework for participatory spatial planning

“The right we don’t exercise becomes numb; The freedom we don’t act upon withers away.” ¹ (Heinrich Böll, 1983)  

Instead of quoting a definition of spatial planning, we can alternatively acknowledge it as the ensemble of all urban and regional planning. It is a ‘social practice’ of space organisation that gains juridical form after being verified by the state administration. It determines what kind of spatial and human interventions are considered legitimate and how we perceive the natural aspect of a place. For instance: it determines the place, the characteristics and the size of the green areas, the details of the ‘plot ratio’ and the appropriate use of the land, where the infrastructures of transportation will be located, etc. Spatial planning affects all human and natural environments, along with the so-called “socio-spatial dialectics” that influence the whole society. Going through a quick overview of the last decade’s spatial planning and its evolution, we investigate the recent tendencies toward citizens’ participation (participatory planning) and track down the institutional mechanisms that will help us maintain and expand similar rights.      

Spatial planning reform 

The contemporary spatial planning framework reflects a state shrinkage, market liberalisation, and new public-private administration ². These tendencies were further strengthened by the global economic crisis (2008) and the debt crisis of the Greek State (2010). This had a significant impact on institutional planning, leading to a dominant focus on attracting more investments ³. The planning procedures became more favorable to investors and market needs, allowing for a flexible and neoliberal policy to emerge ⁴. Law 4024/2012 brought urban and spatial reform to the forefront by approving the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality, also known as the Second Memorandum. In Chapter 4.2 of the document titled “To Improve the Business Environment and Enhance Competition in Open Markets”, the Planning Reform Act is included. According to this act, “the Greek government must reassess and reform the general urban planning legislation, with the view to ensure more flexible conditions for the investors and further simplify urban planning” ⁵. In effect, both planning and legislation in Greece were led to attract foreign investments, by privatising big parts of public assets. On the web page of the Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund [ΤΑΙΠΕΔ] ⁶, public property of every kind, size, location, or use (whether it is a building, a port, a beach, or an airport) is put up for sale under the guise of ‘growth’ policy. 

It is worth noting that the obligation for spatial planning reform due to the memorandum is not unique to Greece, but it is common in other South European countries during the same period. “The European Institutions used loans and bailouts as a pressure mechanism to enforce institutional reforms in urban planning in Portugal, Spain, and Greece during times of austerity and crisis.” This led to the creation of an “informal urban planning policy in the European South” ⁷. Such policies required an experiment in reforms that would facilitate the neoliberal governance of urban spaces. What the new legislations have in common is the simplification of land use by changing legal procedures, providing exceptions, and accelerating public constructions. The implementation of these policies turned urban planning in South European countries into a political arena for grassroots demands ⁸. These developments become more evident in the case of public spaces. According to a study conducted in various cities across Europe, it has been concluded that the democratic management of public spaces “is possible, but only through resistance, protest and struggle that will compel others to listen and bear in mind all those new voices” ⁹. In other words, the public space is under threat, and its protection requires a struggle ¹⁰.

The “Special Urban Planning” 

In only six years, three different spatial planning frameworks were approved as part of the “urban planning reform” outlined in the second memorandum. These frameworks include Laws 4269/2014, 4447/2016 and 4759/2020. In this text, we will discuss the primary legislation that serves as the institutional framework for urban planning, which is outlined in Law 4759/2020. The previous two laws related to urban planning have been gradually invalidated by the new legislation. However, it is essential to note that none of these laws address the issue of participatory planning, except for the procedures of deliberation.

One of the key changes in these regulations is the implementation of a new “Special Urban Development Plan” (SUDP) mechanism, previously known as the “Special Land Use Plan” (article 11, Law 4759/2020). This mechanism aims to ease the “infrastructures and projects of inter-regional scale or of strategic importance”, in order to ensure in these cases “special regulations for the use of land and other factors of urban development.” The criteria for determining the “inter-regional scale” or a “project of strategic importance” are not provided, making it difficult to decide when the criteria are met. It is up to the Ministry of Environment to interpret the regulation and is the same one that approves SUDP projects. Nevertheless, the way the regulation is articulated automatically excludes small enterprises from using it ¹¹, but it includes corporations with a high turnover. In practice, this results in unequal access to the use of this regulation. The land use limitations of a region can be contradicted by the building regulations and the land use determined by the SUDP ¹². In effect, this means that if a region has building limitations (restrictions on land use, plot ratio, lot integrity, maximum building height, etc.), they can all be easily disregarded.     

The participatory procedures 

Regarding participatory procedures in SUDP projects, the 8th article of the law states in its 3rd paragraph that: “If the landowner is the entity responsible for the construction plan procedure, they may skip the publication process as per case b of the 4th paragraph.” The publication process mentioned above refers to no other than the obligation of any administration to inform the citizens of the construction plans of their region and the citizens' right to object to it (see next section). With the above restrictions, citizens and other entities lose the right to be informed and to act when the corporation owns the land. The administration is still responsible for informing the public during the deliberation of the environmental study, but (as mentioned below) there is a significant difference between deliberation and objection.   

A third element of this new institutional framework in spatial planning that is worth mentioning is the intention of privatising the public services that are responsible for it. The Ministry of Environment and Energy creates the “Register of Certified Spatial Assessors” ¹³. Those assessors are natural or legal persons (i.e. corporations), to whom the Ministry can assign the entire urban and land-use studies, all of which were previously undertaken by public services. In particular, their role can “entail the preparation of the documents for the public tendering procedures, evaluation of bidding offers, control and evaluation of the deliverables for the urban study, forwarding to the public offices or administrations for consultation, publication for public deliberation, initial assessment of consultations, drafts in case of approval or rejection, and anything that has to do with a legally sufficient study” (Article 95, paragraph 3 of Law 4759/2020). These clauses concern every study of urban planning regardless of the entity that initiates the procedure and prepares the study. It is a regulation that de facto limits the role of the State in urban planning. As long as the State remains absent from the procedures mentioned above, its ability to defend the public interest is weakened. It is only up to the public and the organised civil society to defend it.    

Institutional mechanisms for participatory urban planning 

Bearing in mind the various degrees of participation we can find in the relevant literature, we can assume that institutional participatory (spatial) planning in Greece remains at the lowest level ¹⁴. Firstly, the State is held responsible for the information of the public. It is protected by the Constitution (art. 5A), according to which “each and everyone is entitled to information. Only absolute necessity can lead to legislations that limit that right” and is protected by the code of Administrative Procedure (Law 2690/1999), according to which each citizen can have access to documents produced by the public administration (even if he/she has no legal interest). The administration is obligated to inform the public of everything that determines or changes the street plan of the city. The law determines this right to information as a “publicity phase” (see below) and protects the citizen’s right to object to the study.      

The right to object is a frequent, effective, and established way for citizens to participate in Greek urban planning, even though it is not regarded as a participatory process in the relevant literature. Along with the publicity process, this right is a century-old practice emanating from the Dicree-Law of July 17, 1923 “On urban, town and settlement’s State planning and their development.” The process of objecting aims to protect the legal rights of all parties who may be threatened by any regulation. The right to object is provided only during the process of determining or modifying the street plan, but not during the higher levels of spatial planning. It is an act that rejects the content of the study presented to the supervision office and not an alternative proposal, and therefore it requires a well-documented response from the same office.

Deliberation enables all interested parties to submit proposals or express their opinion to the office that supervises or approves the proposal. Contrary to the objection process, those entities have no obligation to offer a well-documented response to any interested party. In theory, the objections are taken into consideration by the supervising authorities, but in practice, they can be ignored, and the supervision offices have no obligation to respond. Deliberation for spatial planning studies (i.e. General Urban Plans, Spatial Planning Frameworks) is usually applied in cases of Strategic Environmental Impact Studies that accompany those proposals. In such cases, deliberation is required due to the European Directives ¹⁵ that have been integrated into the Greek legislation.   

Neighbors’ Urban Planning Committee 

As we already mentioned, the latest framework legislation (Law 4759/2020) does not include any institutional mechanisms for citizen participation. Going back to previous urban planning legislations, the most significant mechanism still in force is the Neighbors’ Urban Planning Committee (article 30 of Law 1337/1983 and Joined Ministerial Decision-JMD [ΚΥΑ] Γ.621/59/1984). The nomination process of the Committee is determined by the Municipal Council, with the aim of representing the citizens most effectively. It has a consultative function, and the determinations it makes are not mandatory. The Committee has the following responsibilities:   

• To oversee the spatial planning studies and provide recommendations to the City Council. 
• “To ensure the actual participation of citizens, especially through public assemblies for the neighborhood’s urban problems” (JMD Γ.621/59/1984) 
• to address issues and proposals to the City Council regarding the region’s problems of land use, public building placement, traditional building maintenance, environmentally dangerous buildings, etc.  

The institutional frameworks of urban planning that followed the establishment of the Neighbors’ Urban Planning Committee did not refer to it, but they did not abolish it either. There is only oral evidence that such Committees were constituted during the 80s, even though the existing information available (e.g. through internet search engines, archived administration acts) makes it practically impossible to detect the institution of one such Committee. The reason why such an institution was never spread is yet to be researched, but some ideas have already been suggested. For example: 

“One could suggest that the most important reason is the fact that it was an advisory body that presented proposals to another advisory body (the neighbor’s council) with no authority of intervention. Nevertheless, no one can underestimate the novelty of- and necessity for- such collective bodies in Greek urban life, and it is worth noting that the mechanism remains in force even after the Law 2508/97” ¹⁶.

“… maybe it never attracted the attention of the local or the central administration, and even the citizens themselves lacked the information or the willingness to engage in those processes” ¹⁷. 

New mechanisms for public participation

The participation of the people in processes of urban planning can be achieved through the institutional framework of the local administration. For example, during the last decade the following mechanisms of participation have been instituted:

1. Local and Municipal/Regional Referendums (not in force anymore)

The local referendums were initially provisioned by Article 216 of Law 3463/2006 [Code of Municipalities and Communities]. Their application was possible after the decision of the majority (2/3) of the local council. A petition can only be initiated by citizens representing one-third (1/3) of the population in cases of merging municipalities or annexation of a local apartment into another municipality. The ‘Klisthenis’ [Κλεισθένης] reform abolished the local districts (Paragraph 2 of Article 151 of the Law 4555/2018.). Nevertheless, the institution gains momentum, considering that a whole chapter (articles 131-151) refers to municipal and regional referendums that can even be requested by 10% of the registered voters in the area. The decisional or advisory character of the referendum is determined by its proclamation from the local administration. The institution of municipal and regional referendums was suspended only two years after its establishment. According to Article 1, paragraph 11 of Law 4674/2020, “The applicability of articles 133-151 in the 4555/2018 Law is suspended for the current administrative period.”.     

2. The Assembly of the Community’s Citizens

Article 85 of the ‘Kallikratis’ Law (3852/2010), replaced by Article 87 of the ‘Klisthenis’ Law, makes provision for citizens’ assemblies. The legislation refers to the responsibility of the president or the community council to hold an annual assembly of the citizens and the local authorities, with the possible collaboration of the local deputy Mayor in charge. The purpose is for the citizens to suggest the kind of actions that the local authorities should take, respecting their needs and priorities for local development.

3. Municipal Deliberation Committee. 

Article 76 of the ‘Kallikratis’ Law (3852/2010), replaced by Article 78 of the ‘Kaleisthenis’ Law (4555/2018), acknowledges the Municipal Consultation Committee as an advisory body that is formed by the City Council. The Municipal Deliberation Committee is composed of representatives from the local bodies with the participation of elected by-ballot citizens who form up to one-third of the total Committee members. 

In 2016, the Ministry of Interior set up a committee to revise the institutional framework of the local authorities ¹⁸ (following Article 5 of Law 4368/2016). The final resolution of this committee ¹⁹, especially chapter “E” entitled “Institutions of social participation and control” is a valid source for evaluating social participation, like the aforementioned mechanisms. The committee reached the following three conclusions:

• The excess of formality or bureaucratization that characterizes both the formation and the function of these institutions prevents the local communities from using them in several frontier issues.   

• There are “horizontal” institutions (e.g. Deliberation Committees) with unclear status, rather than participatory mechanisms for several issues that citizens could activate according to their interests. 

• Their limited effectiveness because of their advisory nature, along with the unwillingness of the local authorities to comply with their responsibility for participatory procedures because they face no legal consequences.  

Recent research on the same topic reaches the same conclusions ²⁰ by highlighting the low participation in the meetings of the Deliberation Committees, their non-existence in small municipalities, their lack of support from the city councils due to their lack of personnel, and several other factors that contribute to their ineffectiveness.     

Efford to create a new institution

It is worth mentioning that a rather promising public interest in the collaboration between civil movements and municipal authorities is growing in the European South, as a response– and in contrast- to the neoliberal reforms for spatial and urban planning that are promoted at the same time. Cases in point are the New Municipalism in Spain and the Regulation on Urban Commons in Bologna ²¹, adopted by a dozen cities in Italy. Cases like these demonstrate the important role that local authorities can play, as long as they politically engage with organized citizens and social movements. The Bologna Regulation was institutionally created through collaboration between municipalities on the local level instead of the state level, utilizing established legal ‘patterns’ (e.g. ineffective old laws or Constitutional provisions instead of laws).       

The former ‘Karatasiou’ camp is a fertile ground for the establishment of similar types of cooperation in Greece. It is a successful example of citizens and the city claiming a common space ²². The Laboratory for the Study of Common Practices for Space and Development (Co-SPACE) in the AUTH School of Spatial Planning and Development researches how this collaboration can be institutionalised. It is a project processed by civil associations and collectivities working on the field and with the support of Sakis Lazaridis, Deputy Mayor for the Environment, Nature, and Volunteering of the Paulou Mela municipality. The goal is to officially recognize civil associations and collectivities as permanent consultants for space planning and management in local authorities. The Neighborhood Town Planning Committee, founded by the City Council, is the adequate institutional mechanism to support an attempt like that. We are looking forward to a Resolution that will update such committees to the new framework and will bring innovations in space management issues with the collaboration of citizens and public administration.

¹ Source: https://gr.boell.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/ΧΑΪΝΡΙΧ%20ΜΠΕΛ_ΑΝΑΜΕΣΑ%20ΣΤΙΣ%20ΓΡΑΜΜΕΣ.pdf 

² Andrikopoulou, E., Giannakou, A., Kaukalas, G., Pitsiava, M. (2007) City and Urban Planning Practices, Thessaloniki: Kritiki [Greek edition].

³ Oikonomou D. And Laleni K. Interviews (2014) “For the traditions of planning and the role of experts” [in Greek]. Available at:  http://gkafkala.webpages.auth.gr/site/%cf%80%ce%bf%ce%bb%ce%b7%ce%ba%cf%81%ce%b9%cf%83%ce%b7/conversations/ 

⁴ Papageorgiou, Marilena (2017) “Spatial Planning in Transition in Greece: A Critical Overview.” European Planning Studies 25 (10): 1818–33.

⁵ Giannakoupou, A. and Kaukalas, G. (2014) Reviewing spatial planning in periods of crisis: necessity, content and requirements for reforms, p. 518. [Greek edition]. Available at: https://stage.hba.gr/5Ekdosis/UplPDFs/sylltomos14/511-522%20Giannakourou-Kafkalas%202014.pdf 

⁶ https://hradf.com/axiopiisi-chartofilakiou/epikimena-erga/ 

⁷ Tulumello, S., Cotella, G., & Othengrafen, F. (2020), “Spatial planning and territorial governance in Southern Europe between economic crisis and austerity policies”, International planning studies, 25 (1), 72-87.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Madanipour, A., Knierbein, S., & Degros, A. (2014), “Politics for public space in European cities”, Gestion y Ambiente (Online), 17 (1), 115-137.

¹⁰ Athanassiou, E. (2017), “The hybrid landscape of public space in Thessaloniki in the context of crisis”, Landscape research, 42(7), 782-794.

¹¹ According to paragraph 4a of Article 8 in Law 4759/2020, the process for the composition of the Special Land Use Plan can be initiated by the body or agency that materializes a plan, a project or a program, which can include private companies.

¹² This design is processed by the General Urban Development Plan [ΣΧΟΟΑΠ] and the Local Space Plans (recently Local Urban Space Plans).   

¹³ Paragraph 1 of Article 95 in Law 4759/2020, amended by the Article 153 in Law 4759/2020, see https://gsri.gov.gr/mitroo-pistopoiimenon-axiologiton/.

¹⁴ The estimation, like the tools mentioned below, is based on the Arnstein scale and its variations. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). “A ladder of citizen participation”, Journal of the American Institute of planners 35(4), 216-224, and Stathakopoulos (1988), Participatory Procedures and Urban Planning – forms and degrees of participation, Thessaloniki: Delousis [Greek edition]. 

¹⁵ 2003/35/ΕΚ and 2011/92/ΕΕ. See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011L00…

¹⁶ Tasopoulou Anastasia (2011) “Urban Governance: urban policy and space management applied in Project Announcements of General Urban Plans – Plans of Spatial and Residential Development [ΓΠΣ-ΣΧΟΟΑΠ] in Greece [Greek edition]. Available at: https://www.didaktorika.gr/eadd/handle/10442/28905. 

¹⁷ Christaki A. (2011) Participation in planning: theoretical approaches and practices, p.36. Research study [In Greek]. Available at:  http://ikee.lib.auth.gr/record/133390/files/XRISTAKIee.pdf.

¹⁸ As mentioned in paragraph 2 of the article: The Committee is responsible for recording and evaluating the existing legislative framework that regulates the overall organization, institutionalisation, and economic operation of local authorities, and their relation to the Central and Decentralised Public Administration. Another responsibility is the editing of a proposal for the reform of this framework and its presentation to the Minister in charge, including a draft of the legislative plan.   

¹⁹ Available at: https://www.ypes.gr/UserFiles/f0ff9297-f516-40ff-a70e-eca84e2ec9b9/TelP….

²⁰ Agriou, S. (2022) “Deliberation in local authorities. Is the change of paradigm possible?” [in Greek]. Presentation at the Athen’s conference “22 Years of Geographies: Crises – Resistances - Perspectives”, 24-26 of November 2022. 

²¹ It concerns an institutional framework that allows citizens and local authorities to regulate in common the city’s public and private spaces, along with the management of its resources. Available at:  http://www.comune.bologna.it/media/files/bolognaregulation.pdf.

²² For instance, see: https://www.theopinion.gr/reportaz/fakelos-karatasioy-i-dikaiosi-ton-agonon-to-diakyveyma-tis-epomenis-meras/