Arealplanfaglige prinsipper og tradisjoner i planlegging av tettbygde fritidsbyggområder

Barriers and challenges to sustainable physical planning for mountain destinations and second-home developments in the mountain region of south-eastern Norway: the reign of governments or developers?

“…Thus, as Holsen (2017) has noted, the new market-driven planning has resulted in a planning system outside the planning legislation. The present planning legislation is better suited for strategic planning but is less suited for coordinating a plethora of smaller privately initiated plans and developments (Holsen, 2017). Consequently, long term planning, both urban and rural, has a less significant place, as it is replaced by piece-by-piece decisions resulting from private plans and a market-controlled planning regime.…”

Sustainable and Equitable Land Management

“…Earlier legislation had imposed procedures for cadastral registration in urban settlements. But in contrast to these earlier rules that typically required surveying when a property was sold, the legislation from 1978 dropped such requirements (Larsen 1978). The Land Consolidation Court could practice surveying of properties in rural areas on demand, if the property owners requested it.…”

Contemporary challenges of spatial planning in tourism destinations

“…The present Norwegian planning laws are considered to fall into the group referred to as the "Scandinavian Family" of planning laws, which are characterized by being flexible with a relatively high degree of independence at the local level (Newman & Thornley, 1996, p. 39). However, compared to that of other Scandinavian countries, the Norwegian legislation differs somewhat in that it is more discretionair, meaning that the planning autority is less bound by legal restrictions and can rely more on own asseessment when making planning decisions (Holsen, 2017). Moreover, the Norwegian legislation opens for anybody to propose private development plans, which the local authorities are obliged to evaluate (Røsnes, 2005, p. 38).…”

“…There was still a strong belief in a national control with spatial planning locally and regionally. This was an expressed goal of coordination between national, regional (county) and local (municipality) plans, to balance and resolve the conflict between the demand for areas to develop and the increased need to protect the environement and secure natural resources (Holsen, 2017).…”

“…The plan-and building act of 1985 continued the belief of a strong national control with the regional and local govenrments, for a sustainable, long term management of natural resources (see e.g. Holsen, 2017). The objective was therefore to be able to control and coordinate the spatial planning between the national, regional, and local levels (see e.g.…”