[ad_1]
Mykolo Lietuvo street, between the capital districts of Bajorai and Verkiai, will remain only in the municipal plans for a long time. The Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court rejected the municipality’s appeal this week and confirmed a favorable decision for the Visorių resident community, so the environmental impact of the planned street will need to be reassessed.
The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (SACL) examined the administrative case on the basis of a dispute initiated by the association “Community of residents of the Visorių Valley” (Community) about the possibilities of the planned construction of Mykolas Lietuvio street in Vilnius.
The community went to court to defend their interest in a healthy and safe environment. The lawsuit in court alleged that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report had incorrectly assessed the impact of noise on public health, as a Community-commissioned acoustic noise assessment found that residential traffic noise in residential areas would exceed the limit values throughout the day. The plaintiffs also claimed in their complaint that heavy traffic would be allowed on the projected street, but that data on heavy transport had not been taken into account in the calculations of traffic intensity, noise and air pollution.
Considering that the contested decision did not take into account the fact that HGVs were authorized on that street and that the design speed was 70 km / h instead of 50 km / h, as estimated in the calculations of EIA, the Court of Justice The first instance held that: that the evidence gathered by the applicant and submitted to the file suggests that the noise limit values will be exceeded at the proposed site and that the calculations of air pollution and traffic intensity they do not reflect the actual situation in the place. proposed site. The Court of First Instance overturned the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision and ordered a re-examination of the EIA report of the planned Mykolo Lietuvio street in Vilnius, requiring the planning organizer to provide street noise calculations and air pollution according to B1 (main city streets) category in the Technical Building Regulations and roads of local importance. General requirements ”and based on the results obtained after receiving repeated conclusions from the EIA subjects, decide on the suitability of the noise abatement measures selected in the EIA report, ensuring that the noise limit values are not exceeded, as well as on the permeability of planned economic activities under the first and / or second activity.
The SACL panel of judges, having examined the appeals of the accused Environmental Protection Agency and the Vilnius City Municipality administration of the interested third party, recognized the decision of the lower court as legitimate and well founded and rejected the appeals.
On appeal, the defendant Environmental Protection Agency stated that according to the decisions of the land use planning documents, the planned heavy traffic on Mykolas Lietuvio Street is not planned, therefore the EIA should not be carried out taking into account the technical requirements for design street speed. and heavy traffic. Rejecting this argument, the SACL pointed out that the general plan of the solutions of the development network of the city of Vilnius and the scheme of the limits of the streets (red lines) of categories A, B, C of the territory of the municipality of the city of Vilnius provide for the Mykolo Lietuvio street B1 category, where the speed is 70 km / h and heavy transport traffic. The panel of judges of the Court of Appeal noted that the case did not contain any data confirming that the organizer of the planned economic activity (Vilnius City Municipality Administration) had made legally binding decisions on planned traffic and speed restrictions on the planned street. therefore, the applicant reasonably seeks the EIA report to evaluate noise and pollution caused by traffic speeds typical of this category of urban traffic.
Rejecting the Vilnius City Municipality’s appeal of the argument that the case protects an exclusively private interest, the SACL panel of judges noted that the Community is considered an interested public that may be affected by decisions, actions or omissions in the field of EIA evaluation. environment. In the case in question, their interest cannot be at odds with the public interest in better urban transport and better transport infrastructure. The SACL ruling establishes that the public interest (public) must be implemented seeking a balance of interests, which means that adequate measures must be taken to protect the rights of the public concerned to an adequate quality of life, as required by article 4 of the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment of the Proposed Economic Activities.
Information from the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania
