Urban Research & Practice – Volume 18, Issue 2
20/05/2025Urban Regeneration Talk #7, Denmark
23/06/2025
Conversation #73
The role of spatial planning law.
A case study of Central and Eastern European countries
by Maciej J. Nowak
West Pomeranian University of Technology, Poland
Spatial and urban planning covers numerous diverse thematic areas. In this context, architectural issues, geographical issues, environmental and nature protection, cultural heritage protection, social objectives and responses to climate change are particularly noteworthy. The list of issues is long. Combining them, and jointly implementing the associated objectives, is a difficult challenge.
These issues differ in terms of terminology and how they determine spatial planning. One of the important instruments facilitating these activities should be the law. This law should (in theory) create a common framework for diverse perspectives and points of view in planning. In practice, however, answering how exactly the law should implement spatial objectives is complicated. On the one hand, the problem described above is related to the need for planning law to integrate completely different perspectives. On the other hand, it is important to remember the significant differences between the legal systems of individual countries, which necessitate the adaptation of legal regulations to the specific characteristics of each country.
However, generalising somewhat, it is possible to identify some common dilemmas concerning the role of law in shaping urban and rural development:
- The formulation of spatial planning law: general or detailed?
- The need to balance public and private interests
- The difficulty of translating core planning values such as sustainable development, nature conservation and spatial order, into planning law
- The role of law in strategic planning
- The legal enforcement of planning provisions
- The terminological consistency of individual planning tools
Whilst the role of planning law is well understood in Western Europe it has not received sufficient attention in Central and Eastern Europe. Serious problems with planning law remain a common experience in countries such as Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.
A common feature of the countries studied is the weakness of spatial planning law. This weakness is linked to all the challenges mentioned above. Below are three case studies in which (despite different detailed legal regulations) this weakness is noticeable.
In Poland, between 2002 and 2023, a system was in place that guaranteed two legally binding planning tools at the local level: local spatial development plans and decisions on land use and development conditions. According to the legislator's assumptions, spatial plans should play a key role. The plans could be adopted by municipal authorities, which were free to decide whether and for which area the plans would be adopted. Ultimately, however, it was assumed that plans would be adopted for the vast majority of Poland. Where, for various reasons, plans could not be adopted in time, they were to be replaced by administrative decisions – decisions on land development and use conditions. These decisions referred to specific investments. Applications for decisions were submitted by investors (acting in their private interest).
The practice turned out to be completely different from the legislator's intentions. Spatial plans were adopted by municipal authorities very reluctantly. Municipal authorities feared public discontent and (possible) compensation claims from dissatisfied owners. As a result, administrative decisions became the dominant tool in most of the country. Between 2003 and 2023, approximately 2.5 million such decisions were issued (which, let us recall, were only supposed to be supplementary). In this way, a significant proportion of investment decisions were made not based on well-thought-out plans, but on the subjective expectations of investors in individual cases.
In Bulgaria, different rules applied, but the trend was the same. At the local level, there are two types of spatial plans: general plans and detailed plans. General plans define zones and broader spatial guidelines. Detailed plans were not mandatory for every area. However, once adopted, they specified some of the development parameters for a given area. The legislator provided for an exceptional situation: if a general plan cannot be adopted quickly in a given municipality, there is a unique opportunity. A detailed plan for a single plot of land could then be adopted. In practice, however, things took a different turn from what the legislator had intended. This ‘exception’ became the norm. Many municipalities deliberately did not adopt general plans to be able to take advantage of the possibility of adopting detailed plans for a single plot of land. These plans met all the expectations of investors.
A slightly different problem exists in the Czech Republic. Since 2006, there have also been two types of plans at the local level in this country: general plans and regulatory plans. Investors can obtain individual building permits based on broader general plans. However, in 2006, regulatory plans were introduced. These were intended to provide more detailed guidelines for development (and replace individual building permits) and to designate areas where no development is possible (the Czech legislator even provided for special types of regulatory plans for such areas). It was assumed that broader, more detailed plans would improve spatial planning in the Czech Republic. However, in practice, things took a completely different turn. Regulatory plans, as potentially problematic, are very rarely adopted in Czech municipalities. An alternative system is much more popular: issuing building permits based on general plans.
Each of these three examples obviously requires a more detailed description. Nevertheless, a similar process seems to occur in each country: when creating spatial planning law, the legislator sets out objectives, but these are then implemented in a completely different way in planning practice. Very often, solutions that are considered complementary become dominant, distorting the original planning assumptions. These examples clearly show that the application of spatial planning law is a process full of pitfalls and challenges, requiring special attention from the social scientific community.
The role of spatial planning law. A case study of Central and Eastern European countries, by Prof. Maciej Nowak, offers a valuable comparative perspective on the role of planning legislation in a region shaped by deep post-socialist transformations. It focuses on a geographical area that remains insufficiently explored, where both the structural weaknesses of spatial planning systems and the persistent gap between legal design and practical implementation continue to prevail.
In Poland, the coexistence of local spatial plans and administrative decisions gave rise to demand-driven planning, with millions of individual approvals issued over two decades, sidelining an integrated spatial vision. A comparable pattern emerged in Bulgaria, where widespread reliance on detailed plans for single plots—often guided by private interests—undermined the structuring role of general plans. In the Czech Republic, the reluctance to implement regulatory plans, intended to replace permits and limit development, reflects institutional resistance to more restrictive planning instruments.
Nowak argues that the legal fragility of spatial planning systems is rooted not only in technical deficiencies but also in historical and institutional path dependencies. These inherited trajectories have reinforced a logic of fragmented, reactive planning that stands in stark contrast to the more integrated and strategic patterns promoted in Western European contexts.
Comparative planning studies is a well-established subfield of planning studies. Although a large number of publications are available, the scholarly literature reveals a series of gaps. One such gap is the lack of comparative research on planning law. Maciej Nowak’s contribution addresses this gap by offering perspectives on comparative research, particularly for Eastern European countries. This is to be welcomed. The importance of law in spatial and urban planning is undisputed.
However, planning law is often assumed to be established and stable, and is therefore considered an apolitical and neutral factor. According to this understanding, planning merely implements law, at least in the continental European sense. Maciej Nowak’s examples from Poland and Bulgaria, however, show that law is at the heart of planning practice. The relevance of much-discussed concepts, such as strategic planning and sustainable land use, does not only depend on mental models, professional practices, or planning cultures. Rather, it depends on legal requirements, the form of which is politically disputed and determined. In this sense, planning law is a dependent variable.