Initiator-led Participation within the Environment and Planning Act

Abstract

The Environment and Planning Act (EPA) has increased the emphasis on decentralised policy and public participation in the Dutch built environment. One area where these two aspects come together is participation policy for BOPA applications. Non-governmental parties that want to commence a project that conflicts with the physical environment plan can apply for a BOPA (vergunning voor Buitenplannelijke Omgevingsplanactiviteit). Public participation is always advised, but not required for these applications, unless the municipality where the project is located specifically determines that participation is mandatory. If participation is mandatory, it is a compulsory application requirement; insufficient participation means the application is incomplete and will not be considered further. What counts as insufficient participation is difficult to determine exactly, because municipalities only check the completeness of the application. As long as the initiator provides a participation report that explains how participants were involved and what the outcome of the participation was, the application is complete. This research has analysed how different municipalities have shaped their policies on mandatory participation and how they take the participation report submitted by the initiators into account in their decision-making.

By analysing the policies of 50 representative municipalities, three categories emerge: all projects have mandatory participation (n=11), some specific projects have mandatory participation (n=36), and no projects have mandatory participation (n=3). Even within the largest category, the policies differ widely. This indicates how varied the different municipal policies are. Of these municipalities, four have been selected for further analysis, with each category represented. This analysis included their reasoning for choosing their policy, their evaluation of the policy, the way they evaluate the participation reports, and their success factors for participation.

This analysis highlighted varied reasons for choosing their policy, including minimising workload, maintaining a sense of community, and avoiding legal issues. All municipalities report tangible benefits of participation in the form of improved project designs, fewer official complaints, and better public acceptance. Still, the influence the participation reports have on the decision-making is minimal. Participation outcome is more important than the participation process, but neither is ever a decisive factor. The participation is mostly used as an instrument to determine what aspects lead to concerns with the public and what the public opinion is on the project. Lastly, municipal success factors mainly include good transparent collaboration between the initiator and participants and public acceptance.

The outcome of the research includes recommendations for both the national and local governments, as well as future research. The way the EPA is currently set up, the minimal required standard for participation is extremely low. Municipalities are not able to set any requirements for the participation, but are only able to check the completeness of the application. This system makes it impossible for municipalities to hold initiators accountable for failing to facilitate meaningful participation. This research suggests changing the EPA to make it possible for municipalities to set requirements for the projects that have mandatory participation. By communicating these requirements clearly with the initiators, it becomes possible to ensure a higher standard for participation in these projects through an objective evaluation system. Projects where participation was not mandatory are excluded to not discourage initiators from facilitating participation.