a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process
a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process
a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
In expertise reports; it is menti<strong>on</strong>ed that “court council has demanded an<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>evaluati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> regard<strong>in</strong>g development plans, this is why <strong>the</strong>y has taken such an <str<strong>on</strong>g>evaluati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
<strong>in</strong>to c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>” and follow<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ts are stated regard<strong>in</strong>g plann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>process</strong>:<br />
1. The are that is <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong> litigati<strong>on</strong> was def<strong>in</strong>ed as “n<strong>on</strong>-residential area” <strong>in</strong> zmir<br />
Metropolitan Area Master Plan scaled 1/25000, approved <strong>in</strong> 1973 by M<strong>in</strong>istry <strong>of</strong><br />
Public Works and Settlement,<br />
2. This area was decided as highway and area to be planted <strong>in</strong> 1988 and approved <strong>on</strong><br />
Master Plan Revisi<strong>on</strong> by Greater Municipality <strong>of</strong> zmir <strong>in</strong> 1989,<br />
3. In <strong>the</strong> Master Plan scaled 1/5000 approved <strong>in</strong> 2002, it <strong>in</strong>cludes plots no:96 and 98<br />
and part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> unregistered land<br />
4. There is not any accordance with <strong>the</strong> zmir Metropolitan Area Master Plan, which<br />
was approved <strong>in</strong> 1989 but still <strong>in</strong> force today, and Master Plan scaled 1/5000 and<br />
this c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> has a c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> to pr<strong>in</strong>ciple and basis <strong>of</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>process</strong>,<br />
5. Plan changes were not realized accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> article no:24/1 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> regulati<strong>on</strong><br />
arrang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciples that should be applied <strong>in</strong> development plan revisi<strong>on</strong>s,<br />
6. A plan, an approach that focus <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e property (properties <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> municipality<br />
that authorized for plan preparati<strong>on</strong> and approval) will cause a discussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
“equality” and “<strong>justice</strong>” pr<strong>in</strong>ciples,<br />
7. Great part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> land has a slope <strong>of</strong> over 45% and exist <strong>on</strong> 1 st Degree Earthquake<br />
Z<strong>on</strong>e and development proposal with FAR (Floor Area Ratio) <strong>of</strong> 2.5 and 1.4 isn’t <strong>in</strong><br />
accordance. In this framework, accord<strong>in</strong>g to above <str<strong>on</strong>g>evaluati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g>s, expert committee<br />
has decided that “it is not <strong>in</strong> accordance with pr<strong>in</strong>ciples and basis <strong>of</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g, public<br />
<strong>in</strong>terests and Development Act.”(E. No. 2002/1043)<br />
As a result, accord<strong>in</strong>g to expertise report, adm<strong>in</strong>istrative court decided to<br />
“c<strong>on</strong>clude <strong>the</strong> transecti<strong>on</strong> without tak<strong>in</strong>g any pecuniary warranty” with E.No:2003/581<br />
<strong>on</strong> 9.7.2003. The same adm<strong>in</strong>istrative court made <strong>the</strong> same decisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> same area <strong>on</strong><br />
24.7.2003 with E.N. 2003/684. In <strong>the</strong> acti<strong>on</strong> brought with E.No. 2002/792 by <strong>the</strong> same<br />
pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs <strong>in</strong> 12 th Civil Court <strong>of</strong> First Instance aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> same <strong>in</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>s; annulment <strong>of</strong><br />
registrati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> same plots <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name <strong>of</strong> Greater Municipality <strong>of</strong> zmir and<br />
c<strong>on</strong>veyance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se registrati<strong>on</strong> to Municipality <strong>of</strong> Balçova and decisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> cauti<strong>on</strong>ary<br />
judgement were demanded. Greater Municipality <strong>of</strong> zmir objected cauti<strong>on</strong>ary<br />
judgement decisi<strong>on</strong> taken <strong>in</strong> this acti<strong>on</strong> and started <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir objecti<strong>on</strong> petiti<strong>on</strong>; “There<br />
has to be a lapse <strong>of</strong> time <strong>in</strong> a legal <str<strong>on</strong>g>evaluati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> after 30 years.” Besides, it is also claimed<br />
that, “party <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> acti<strong>on</strong> should be <strong>the</strong> Municipality <strong>of</strong> Balçova because <strong>the</strong>y had sold<br />
174