This extensive case description concerns participation under the Planning and Building Act in connection with the Skoyen area zoning plan. The case description contains few personal names, as the democratic and principled aspects form the editorial basis for Oagal rather than party or person-focused coverage. The description contains substantial knowledge and references for local communities, university and college students, researchers without party affiliation, and elected officials who take real democracy seriously.

Background for the preparation of the case description

Christian Soemme at Oagal is a party to the case. As a reader, you must take this into account. A party to a case can hardly be objective. However, Soemme has undertaken this extensive case description of the Skoyen zoning process because the case formed part of the basis for the establishment of Oagal. Aftenposten, NRK Brennpunkt, and Dagsavisen are among the media outlets that, during the process, did not wish to examine the democratic problems in this case. Many media outlets believe they cover democracy, but largely write about the political aspect of it—hence the need for Oagal, with democracy at the core of its editorial platform.

Credit is also due to Akersposten, which has covered the residents’ perspective throughout, and Kommunal-Rapport, which has published debate contributions.

Some additional background on Soemme: he has been a place- and urban-development activist since the 1990s, when Oslo municipality’s Agency for Planning and Building Services (PBE) attempted to administratively slip through a rezoning of Astrids vei in Oslo as part of an entirely different political mandate. The attempt was stopped with the support of Peter Batta, then head of the Norwegian Homeowners’ Association (Huseierne). Afterwards, Soemme served for many years as chair of Skoyen Vel.

At the request of local residents, Soemme initiated the People’s Action for a Humane Skoyen Area Zoning Plan around 2018. The Skoyen action group’s Facebook group aimed for 800 members and has now reached 1,400. Within the group, activists have discussed and made available a large number of case documents from PBE’s public access system. The group has also been an important debate arena for local residents and is closely observed by key actors. Early in the process, the action group established the website skoyen.no, but over time the Facebook group became the most up-to-date channel.

In 2018, Soemme also launched the democracy-activist initiative Medvirkningsombudet (self-appointed) with the website medvirkning.no, because county governors (now called County Governors’ Offices), the Parliamentary Ombudsman, bureaucrats, and politicians fail to safeguard their ombuds roles in the field of spatial planning. The Participation Ombudsman (self-appointed) developed into a democracy-activist initiative that eventually led to the establishment of Oagal. Both initiatives are pro bono civic engagement through Soemme’s company Viis.

Soemme has spent considerable time writing this case description because he believes the reference value is significant in democratic terms and for others dealing with municipal Norway in planning cases. At the time of writing, Soemme’s complaint regarding participation is under consideration by the County Governor of Oestfold, Buskerud, Oslo, and Akershus—who will forward it to the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development. The case description will become even more interesting if the County Governor rejects the complaint. That would reveal an unfortunate side of Norwegian democracy, as so many—including Oslo Municipality’s Municipal Audit Office—have pointed out legal violations and inadequate implementation of participation.

But back to the case.

Facts and further information

Oslo Municipality’s Agency for Planning and Building Services (PBE) announced the start of the planning work for the Skoyen area zoning plan on 14 April 2015, and Oslo City Council adopted the plan on Wednesday, 27 September 2023.

Case documents are available in the public access system for Skoyen area zoning plan, part 1, S-5193, with 1,810 entries and several underlying documents for each entry. The case continues after the City Council’s decision as Skoyen – Area Zoning Plan – S-5193 – Part 2 of 2. Many documents are also available for download in this Dropbox folder.

The position of democracy affirmed in the Planning and Building Act

From a local-democratic perspective, zoning plans are particularly interesting. Democracy is, by definition, a political system in which the people decide—something that is rarely followed up in practice.

However, in planning matters this is difficult to avoid. The people’s contribution is given particular weight through Section 1–1 of the Planning and Building Act, which states that “all affected parties shall be given the opportunity to participate.” This provision was added after extensive preparatory work showing that participation did not, in fact, function as intended.

Read more: Statutory participation requirements have helped little

In the large, non-greenfield Skoyen area zoning plan, the rulers at Oslo City Hall and within the Agency for Planning and Building Services made decisions in ways that resemble earlier totalitarian regimes.

Preparatory work on participation in the Planning and Building Act

The “new” Planning and Building Act replaced the previous act from 1985 as of 2008. Among the many changes was a restriction on the use of exemptions. Similar developments have occurred in Sweden, prompted by the fact that politicians too often overrode lengthy planning processes by granting exemptions that undermined the basis of those processes, including public participation. Participation was also incorporated directly into the Act’s purpose clause.

Legislative processes are extensive, relate to other laws including the Constitution, and often include experience from international cooperation, obligations under international agreements, research, and philosophy. By following the law, those in power act in accordance with all of this. Those who do not follow the law—in planning matters often elected officials and public servants with higher education and well-paid full-time jobs—set aside not only the law but also its very foundation.

Decision-makers who act in contravention of the democratic legislature are referred to by Oagal as rulers.

Rulers have few laws and democratic principles to relate to. Many planning agencies and municipal councils act in ways that resemble this. They apparently believe their work and decisions can override the law and its preparatory works.

While citizens have a trusting expectation that bureaucrats are their public servants, many agencies and bureaucrats pursue their own administrative, non-political agendas. This results in residents being met with a superior attitude toward the authorities’ own knowledge and expertise—often accompanied by arguments based more on sentiment and poorer insight than what experienced and highly educated residents can provide.

There is, however, one crucial difference: the civil servants hold the power, and the outcome is what they decide. The public stands little chance and ends up serving the civil servants. The civil servants hold power and can shred residents’ objections and protests through argumentation. Citizens become so worn down by the struggle that raising funds for and finding the time to sue the powerful counterparty becomes unthinkable—and the outcome uncertain, because the political industry stands so strong even in relation to the courts.

When the law and its intentions are argued to pieces, this also exemplifies how bureaucratic production becomes wasteful. The bureaucracy then expends large resources on matters that have already consumed resources and should not require further effort because the work has been summarized in legislation. As a result, much becomes unnecessarily larger and more expensive—at the expense of citizens.

Preparatory works and legislative proposals as a basis for understanding the Skoyen area zoning plan process

Prior to the Act, the Planning Law Committee and the Building Law Committee submitted their work related to amendments to the legislation. The Planning Law Committee focused particularly on land-use planning, while the Building Law Committee focused on building permit processing. The parliamentary proposition built further on the committees’ work.

Much of the argumentation and legal interpretation put forward by residents in connection with the Skoyen area zoning plan closely mirrors the concrete wording of the law’s intent as expressed in the preparatory works. There is much to be gained for residents in Norway from the law and its intentions actually being followed. Some believe the law needs to be tightened even further for the rulers to comply with it. But until that possibly happens, much can be achieved if the rulers think democratically and follow the law.

Some excerpts from the Planning Law Committee’s first report: Better Municipal and Regional Planning under the Planning and Building Act (NOU 2001: 7).

• The mandate: Particular emphasis is placed on ensuring that planning is holistic, democratic, and decentralized, and that it safeguards information, transparency, and public access so that all those affected can participate in the planning process. (p. 6)
• In many cases, the practice of granting exemptions is unnecessarily extensive. At worst, it may undermine the plan itself and the considerations it is meant to safeguard. This also challenges important values inherent in the planning system—not least public participation. (p. 120)
• When the planning system is to be assessed, planning processes and case handling are very important topics. The Planning and Building Act is largely a law about planning processes. The idea is that the Act’s rules on planning will also ensure qualitatively sound and realistic plans and solutions. Good processes also have value in themselves, as they enable participation and engagement from the population. Giving the public opportunities for insight and participation in important decision-making processes is a key point in Local Agenda 21 and underpins the extensive UN convention on the right to participation and information in environmental matters adopted in 1998 (the Aarhus Convention). […] Planning should be based on a solid and easily accessible knowledge base, good processes, and clear rules of the game for participation by affected private and public actors. (on the mandate, p. 126)
• Despite the fact that the [old, editor’s note] Act contains a set of rules on participation, we see that the participation process in some cases does not function as the legislator intended. Some interests that should have been represented do not always get to present their views, or they do so too late. This may be because they are not informed about the planning process, because they lack strong representatives, or because they have difficulty articulating their own views. (p. 128)
• The widespread privatization of detailed planning has altered some of the premises for the rules on case handling and allocation of responsibility. We see, for example, that the Act’s rules on participation are not sufficiently clear for such processes. (p. 128)
• 10.3 Transparency and participation (p. 130 ff.)
  • Participation means the right of individuals and groups to take part in and influence decision-making processes. Participation means that residents of a society take part in planning their own future.
  • Transparency means that everyone must have access to the information necessary to safeguard their interests.
  • The Committee believes it is not sufficient for the Act to focus solely on citizens’ access and rights, as in the current wording. It should be made clear that planning authorities have a duty to actively engage the population in planning matters that directly affect everyday life. This should also apply to groups that normally find it difficult to promote their interests in planning processes, such as children and young people, the elderly, groups with minority cultural backgrounds, persons with disabilities, and others. Establishing local arenas in the form of neighborhood or area committees that municipalities can interact with may, in some contexts, be a prerequisite for continuity in cooperation. Planning authorities should act as more active pedagogical guides so that residents understand the importance of participation and the possibility of influence. As part of this, municipalities should also strive to provide feedback to private individuals and groups who submit input during planning processes.
  • […] the Committee proposes that a specific provision be included [in the Act, editor’s note] requiring the party responsible for planning to present a participation framework at the same time as the notice of commencement of planning work.
  • Norwegian administrative law is based on a fundamental principle that individuals shall be protected against abuse and arbitrariness by authorities, and shall have the opportunity to foresee their legal position and defend their legal interests. […] Case preparation shall be sound, processing shall take place without undue delay, and civil servants and politicians shall be impartial.
• “Transactive” planning theories are primarily associated with John Friedmann and focus largely on the planning process […]. People are not viewed as anonymous recipients of an outcome—a plan—but as important contributors to the shaping of plans. According to this tradition, planning consists more of dialogue between people (Hudson 1979:389). This does not imply abandoning representative democracy as the basis for planning. (p. 462)

The Planning Law Committee’s second report with legislative proposals: Better Municipal and Regional Planning under the Planning and Building Act II (NOU 2003: 14).

• Section 6.5: Environmental impact assessments for sector plans and measures under other laws (Chapter 17). […] A program for the planning and assessment work shall be prepared, corresponding to the provisions on planning programs under § 1-8. The program shall explain the purpose of the planning or application process, the framework for participation, and the need for assessments. Such a program must also provide a sufficient basis for input from affected authorities and the general public. (p. 137)
• The Committee believes that children and young people must be given greater opportunities to influence and shape their living environment. Strengthening and better facilitation of participation by children and young people will therefore be central to all planning. (p. 168)
• Experience shows that more than 60% of municipalities have not systematically facilitated participation by children and young people. […] Regarding participation, it is emphasized that children and young people shall have a right to participate in planning work, and that municipalities are assigned a special responsibility to ensure active participation by groups requiring special facilitation. Furthermore, the municipal council shall appoint a representative with special responsibility for stimulating and organizing children’s and young people’s participation. (p. 169–170)
• 7.10 Disability and accessibility. Participation in the early planning phases also proves to be low. Developments are positive, but surveys show that significant steps remain before the situation can be considered satisfactory in planning processes, planning documents, and in practice. (p. 171–172)
• […] groups and interests that are unable to participate directly shall, insofar as possible, be given opportunities for participation in other ways. (p. 182)
• Clearer requirements for participation and early-stage efforts in the planning process may quickly result in major savings in later phases, and lead to fewer complaints and objections, which currently consume substantial time and capacity in municipal planning and building authorities. (p. 236)
• A high number of parallel processes may provide good opportunities for those with resources and expertise for extensive lobbying across multiple plans, while other stakeholders may lose real influence, even though they formally have rights to insight, participation, and comment. (p. 237)

Read more: Would participation have made any difference? The rulers find safe harbor in the Public Administration Act

On 9 August 2018, Christian Soemme chose to appeal the decision to Sivilombudsmannen. Sivilombudsmannen (the Parliamentary Ombudsman; now Sivilombudet, the Parliamentary Ombudsman) pointed out that the deadline for submitting a complaint is one year from the administration’s final decision, but that the Ombudsman nevertheless has the authority to take up a case on its own initiative. “We have considered your complaint and the documents received, and have not found grounds to take up the case irrespective of the complaint deadline.”

In other words, the Parliamentary Ombudsman could have done so — but chose not to.

This parliamentary ombudsman for oversight of the public administration is tasked with supervising the public administration and all those in its service in order to prevent injustice against individuals, and to help ensure that the administration respects and safeguards human rights. The ombudsman is also headed by a politician.

Residents and district politicians had to create their own participation arenas

The very existence of the Skoyen district plan was the result of strong local engagement. The district politicians in Ullern district did something as rare as preparing their own feasibility studies ahead of the zoning work for Skoyen.

The reason was that Oslo’s municipal master plan toward 2030 had designated the Skoyen and Bestumkilen areas, as well as the areas of Vaekeroe, Sollerud, and Lilleaker, as development areas requiring coordinated planning.

The district council wanted to get ahead of the planning agency and has stood united throughout the entire Skoyen area zoning plan process, with the exception of Bestumkilen as a public park. The district politicians aligned themselves with the approximately 35,000 residents of the district and all those who additionally use Skoyen as a workplace, including people from other districts. Even this failed to make an impression on the planning agency and City Hall politicians, further illustrating how difficult it has been to achieve participation in this case.

The process and participation in the Skoyen area zoning plan

The first proposal for the Skoyen area zoning plan was submitted for political consideration on 29 June 2018 and was signed by the Director of the Agency for Planning and Building Services and the Director of Urban Development.

One of the proposed measures would have entailed the demolition of the Amalienborg residential block. The Agency for Planning and Building Services had chosen not to hold a preliminary meeting with the residents about this, who instead learned of the uncertain fate of their homes through the media. This also provides insight into the agency’s zero-tolerance approach to dialogue with residents.

It is lacking in empathy and reflects poor moral judgment to inform people through the media that their homes are proposed for demolition.

On page 38 of the proposal, there is an overview of participation measures, which is reviewed below:

1. Commencement of the area zoning plan, consultation period: There is extensive research showing that consultations are not suitable as participation. It is implicit in the parliamentary proposition preceding the adoption of the Planning and Building Act that consultations are for professionals, while participation is for residents. Nevertheless, the consultation became a channel for resident dialogue, for which the Agency for Planning and Building Services was responsible for ensuring compliance with the Act’s requirement that “planning and decisions shall ensure openness, predictability, and participation for all affected interests.” At no point in the process was it ensured that all affected interests were able to participate. A total of 47 submissions were received, while Ullern district alone has more than 30,000 residents. Neither consultations in themselves nor the way this one was conducted can be called participation for all affected parties.
2. Workshop for landowners/developers, the urban design initiative. A participation measure for a small group. Nothing similar was done for residents or their interest organizations.
3. Open information meeting in Skoyen Church, start of the Skoyen area zoning plan: Information meetings are considered one-way information delivery. This is widely recognized and documented, including in “Participation with Impact? Citizen Participation in the Municipal Decision-Making Process” (KS, Uni Rokkansenteret and NIBR, p. 18, section 1.2). Information is important, but information is one-way and therefore, by definition, not participation.
4. The Council for Urban Architecture, Skoyen area zoning plan: This is the city government’s self-appointed council, an internal body. The measure therefore does not constitute citizen participation.
5. Briefing meeting on the urban design initiative, City Government Department for Urban Development. This is described as participation.
6. Dialogue meeting on Bestumkilen with the Small Craft Committee. As of July 2024, the Small Craft Committee consists of five representatives from boating associations and three representatives appointed by the city government. A dialogue meeting is participation, but the challenge in this case is that it was held with the Committee rather than with the boards and members of the affected boating associations.
7. Participation in an information meeting for Ullern neighborhood associations. Taking part in others’ forums is not a participation measure initiated by the municipality.
8. Participation seminar for children and young people in Skoyen. The measure constitutes participation, but the population/number of participants was far from representative and therefore also contrary to Article 104 of the Constitution, which states that “[children] have the right to be heard in matters that concern them, and due weight shall be given to their views in accordance with their age and level of development.” Participation seminars are a typical measure used to tick a checklist in relation to Section 5–1 of the Planning and Building Act. The provision states, inter alia, that “The municipality has a special responsibility to ensure active participation by groups requiring special facilitation, including children and young people.” This provision is often misinterpreted—likely intentionally—to mean that some participation by children and young people is sufficient. In this specific participation measure, the scope was so limited that it amounted in practice to symbolic participation and cannot be regarded as valid participation.
9. Public inspection, consultation period. Consultations are not participation, and the measure was carried out without ensuring that all affected interests were able to participate. This consultation was conducted during and after Oslo City Council adopted that Oslo municipality shall be a leading municipality in participation.
10. Open public meeting. Information meetings are one-way and not participation. This measure also took place after the City Council’s decision that Oslo municipality should be a leading municipality in participation.
11. Collaboration with master’s students at NTNU Architecture and Design. This is not citizen participation.
12. Limited consultation. Consultations are not a citizen participation measure. As conducted, the consultation did not ensure that all affected interests were able to participate. Category B. This consultation also took place after Oslo municipality adopted its ambition to be a leading municipality in participation.
13. Limited consultation/briefing (minor amendment to provisions). Consultation is not participation, nor are briefings, which by nature are one-way. It was not ensured that all affected interests were able to participate in a measure organized by the self-proclaimed participation-leading municipality of Oslo.
14. Submission for political consideration. Sending a plan for political consideration can hardly be regarded as participation and is a striking example of how the municipality labels measures as participation even when they are not.

It appears that the civil servants behind the proposal consider the participation requirement fulfilled simply because participation has occurred—a yes-or-no question to which the answer is yes. However, the participation was not carried out in accordance with the law or the intent of the law as set out in the preparatory works. Neither those affected nor anything resembling a representative sample were allowed to participate. Despite extensive guidance and methodological frameworks, the agency insisted that consultations and information meetings were sufficient.

An updated version of the plan was issued on 28 August 2018.

Submitting a matter for political consideration means that it moves from the administration to the political leadership of the municipality, in this case the City Councillor for Urban Development, Hanna Marcussen. Marcussen is a proponent of participation and stated under the headline “Participation is the key to better urban development” on 14 January 2018 in Magasin.Oslo.Kommune.no:

We must motivate more people to engage early in the planning of our city. People’s local knowledge is the key politicians need to make good decisions; participation is democracy in practice. Hanna E. Marcussen, City Councillor for Urban Development in Oslo, 14 January 2018

City Councillor Marcussen was not satisfied with the proposed area zoning plan and returned it to the Agency for Planning and Building Services for further work.

Read more: Are we moving away from democracy?

Because the municipality’s participation measures were so inadequate, local forces once again mobilized, similar to how district politicians had gathered residents for dialogue meetings related to Ullern district’s feasibility study. This time, it was the developers who carried out Café Dialogue Skoyen in cooperation with the People’s Action for a Humane Skoyen Area Zoning Plan. The case officer for the Skoyen area zoning plan understood that the purpose of the meeting was that the results from the café dialogue would primarily be used by developers as input to their zoning proposals. Café Dialogue Skoyen was conducted in two rounds with a dedicated final report, published on 12 February 2019.

Shortly before this, Oslo municipality’s Control Committee decided to take a closer look at participation in planning processes and on 29 January 2019 (case 11) resolved that Oslo Municipality’s Municipal Audit Office should conduct a review. The Skoyen area zoning plan was one of the zoning cases examined.

The second proposal for the Skoyen area zoning plan was then presented on 8 November 2019, with a consultation period running until 6 January 2020. Shortly thereafter came Municipal Audit Office Report 16/2019: Participation in Zoning Plans, which local activists ensured was included in the case materials, as there is no automatic mechanism for incorporating the Audit Office’s work.

Read more: Participation in Skoyen must be carried out properly according to the Municipal Audit Office’s report

The overview of participation events on page 44 of the second draft was as follows:

The most noteworthy aspect of the new table is that no opportunity was found to carry out new participation measures from the time the first version was submitted for political consideration on 29 June 2018 until the second version was presented on 8 November 2019.

The table now includes an Open Office Day at Skoyen from 12:00 to 18:00 on 15 August 2017—a time when many working people are at work or occupied with private commitments. The Municipal Audit Office refers to this office day on page 22 of its report. The office day was conducted by allowing residents to ask questions and receive answers, but the auditors conclude that the input received was not documented. The audit report states that the Agency for Planning and Building Services considered the open office day to be successful, but listing it as participation without documenting the input gives a misleading picture of practice in Oslo municipality, which has adopted the ambition of being a leading municipality in participation.

The consultation period following the second version was also listed as participation, despite the law’s intention that participation is primarily aimed at residents, while consultations are mainly a tool for professional actors. An open meeting was also held in this phase, which is regarded as one-way communication.

A key aspect of this consultation period was that the Municipal Audit Office’s report formed part of the case basis. The report was critical of participation in the Skoyen process. Particularly serious was the Audit Office’s finding that it could not see that the agency had carried out a satisfactory mapping and assessment of groups requiring special facilitation, which is contrary to Section 4–1 of the Planning and Building Act, which states that:

the planning programme shall explain […] the arrangements for participation, especially with regard to groups assumed to be particularly affected … Planning and Building Act § 4–1, second paragraph

The criticism was so clear that the agency director, Siri Gauthun Kielland—who took up the position while the Skoyen area zoning plan was ongoing—summarised the Municipal Audit Office’s evaluation during an online meeting organised by Oslo Velforbund on 13 April 2021 by stating that “the Skoyen participation failed.”

The Skoyen plan has received a great deal of criticism for participation, and here we can only say that haste makes waste when it comes to participation. The Agency for Planning and Building Services faced very tight deadlines to deliver the plan proposal, and a choice was made that participation would take place through public inspection of the plan—that is, during the consultation period. In hindsight, we can say that this was a wrong decision, and that the result was not a plan delivered quickly, perhaps as a consequence of the lack of participation.

Agency Director Siri Gauthun Kielland, Oslo Velforbund, 13 April 2021

At the same time, the agency director raised principled questions about how participation should actually be carried out. The statements can be read as an acknowledgement of the need for strengthened knowledge and practice within the agency, while the established understanding that “participation is not co-determination” was maintained. Participation is, however, an independent concept with a clear basis in law and preparatory works.

[..] The greatest challenge may be who participates, when in the process, and where. Do we reach all age groups? Do we reach less resourceful groups? Do demographic differences in the city mean that processes must be designed differently to achieve better participation? What about those who do not have the time or capacity to familiarise themselves with extensive planning documents, or who are unsure what they can provide input on and how they can do so? [..]

Agency Director Siri Gauthun Kielland, Oslo Velforbund, 13 April 2021

Despite these acknowledgements, a third proposal for the plan was presented on 19 April 2021, later revised as a fourth proposal on 22 November 2022 and forwarded to the City Government, without addressing the identified shortcomings in participation. The adopted document shows no clear adjustment in approach. This also means that the City Council decision, which was based on the Control Committee’s recommendation and the Municipal Audit Office’s report, has not been followed up in practice.

The agency’s explanation of how the legal breach was followed up was limited to the following:

We have previously sent the consultation statement centrally to the districts, but have now also contacted directly the chairs of the councils for persons with disabilities in Ullern district and Frogner district. They had no comments on the planning work.

Seminar in the Urban Development Committee – as summarised by Akersposten

The Urban Development Committee invited participants to a seminar on 11 May 2023 at Oslo City Hall. The seminar is available as a recorded broadcast.

Journalist Vidar Bakken of Akersposten chose to cover the issue through an opinion piece. Akersposten has followed the planning case over time with particular emphasis on the residents’ perspective, in contrast to larger media outlets that have mainly relayed presentations from developers and the planning agency.

Bakken notes that the lack of genuine participation and dialogue was a recurring theme in submissions from actors who would be affected by the plan.

“It did not result in much self-criticism, either from the City Government or from the Agency for Planning and Building Services. Quite the opposite,” Bakken writes.

He further refers to extensive criticism from representatives of boating associations, the district council of Ullern district, Skoyen Environmental Forum, the People’s Action for a Humane Skoyen Area Zoning Plan, and several of the largest landowners in the area. At the same time, an overview was presented of the Agency for Planning and Building Services’ own assessment of its work on participation.

Bakken also points out that City Councillor Hanna E. Marcussen had previously instructed the agency to increase building heights after input during the planning process pointed in the direction of lower heights.

Oagal refers to this as an example of how political directives can set aside professional assessments and residents’ input, contributing to uncertainty about whether participation is actually given weight.

The outcome, in any case, is that participation is not given real significance.

Silence from the Control Committee

The People’s Action for a Humane Skoyen Area Zoning Plan also reacted to the lack of follow-up from both the political leadership and the Agency for Planning and Building Services, and contacted the municipality’s Control Committee to inform it of the principled problems in the situation.

The Control Committee did not follow up the inquiry in any visible way, giving the impression that the committee did not function as an effective corrective in this case.

Read more: Here you can request Soemme’s letter to the Control Committee

Adopted by the City Council

The Skoyen area zoning plan was ultimately adopted after more than eight years of planning work, at the final City Council meeting of the outgoing majority, which had also borne the main responsibility for the participation process. The opposition argued for postponing the decision, citing deficiencies in both the plan and the participation. Nevertheless, the decision was made on Wednesday, 27 September 2023.

Read more: Oslo municipality breaks the law and forces the Skoyen plan through

The County Governor: “Without legal effect”

The case is still not concluded. In a letter to the Oslo City Council Secretariat, the County Governor of Oslo and Viken writes: “We understand it such that the entire plan has been adopted without legal effect.”

The background is complex.

Five City Council representatives have submitted a request for a legality review.

The Norwegian Public Roads Administration and others have lodged objections to the area zoning plan. When a plan is adopted with objections from bodies holding the right to object, the matter must be forwarded to the ministry for final decision via the County Governor.

The Royal Norwegian Boating Federation (KNBF) has also appealed the decision. As a resident of Skoyen and the Participation Ombudsman (self-appointed), Christian Soemme has also filed a complaint and maintains that the zoning plan is invalid because participation was not carried out in accordance with the Planning and Building Act.