Business, News | The state administrator rejected the complaints: Posten Bring gets the green light for a new facility in Kokstad

BUSINESS LIFE: Posten Bring’s plans to build a new facility in Kokstad have taken a long step forward, after the State Administrator has now confirmed Bergen municipality’s decision from September last year.

The core of the dispute has been the degree of utilization of the area. Posten has to move from Mindemyren, and is planning a new logistics terminal in subfield BKB1. Bir and BKK also want to establish themselves within the planning area. They are planning a new energy center based on wood in subfield BKB4. It is also regulated for smaller and larger subfields with the purpose of industry and warehouses in subfields BKB 5-7. In total, there could be a total of 103,000 square meters of living space.

Previous decisions

The regulation plan was appealed by Forum for nature and outdoor life Hordaland, Per Kårbø and ABO Plan & Arkitektur on behalf of the owner of Kokstaddalen 2 and 4.

The state administrator dealt with the complaint on 8 May last year, and revoked the zoning plan. The background was deficiencies in the municipality’s justification, and a lack of assessments according to the Natural Diversity Act, which is supposed to protect natural diversity. Important for the result was that the red list had been updated after the biodiversity report had been drawn up, so that the report no longer gave a correct picture of the knowledge base.

The city council re-approved the planning proposal in its meeting on 27 September last year. The planning proposal was the same, with some changes in the provisions.

Once again, the Forum for Nature and Outdoor Activities Hordaland (FNF) and the property company Kokstadveien 10 AS complained.

FNF believed the planning decision did not take sufficient account of the Natural Diversity Act. Kokstadveien 10 AS believed their tenants would be directly affected if the areas between the current pavement along Kokstadveien and the building in Kokstadveien 10 were further reduced. This affects the only possibility of access to the showroom for cars. In addition, the complainant believes that the business of serving fast food to businesses in Kokstad will have problems due to the same reduction of the area. Kokstadveien 10 will therefore not accept expropriation of the said area.

Rejects the complaint

The state administrator has dealt with the complaints, and has come to the conclusion that the complaints are rejected and the city council’s decision from September last year is upheld.

In relation to the complaint from FNF, the State Administrator writes the following: “The State Administrator has come to the conclusion that the biodiversity report now accounts for existing knowledge about natural diversity, and that deficiencies that were pointed out regarding the presentation of the existing knowledge have now been rectified.”

The state administrator has analyzed the complaints, the biodiversity reports, the municipality’s response and relevant legislation. The state administrator believes that the knowledge base on natural diversity is sufficient, and that the principle that one should be careful and avoid actions that could damage the environment, even if one does not have complete knowledge of the consequences, has been followed.

The plans have unfortunate consequences for natural diversity, but the balancing of interests has been sufficiently investigated and presented.

The interests of children and young people are safeguarded through description in planning documents, participation and determination of order requirements.

As a result, FNF’s complaint was rejected and Eiendomsselskapet Kokstadveien 10 AS was not successful in its protest.

The decision is final and cannot be further appealed, says the State Administrator’s response to the complaints.

– Disappointed

Gunvar Mikkelsen in the Forum for nature and outdoor life Hordaland is disappointed by the decision.

– We are disappointed by the decision from the State Administrator in this case. As a case manager, I register that the State Administrator seems to think that it is fine that one does not need to value red-listed species correctly in the knowledge base that forms the basis of the regulatory plan. For example, that the natural values ​​do not need to be valued in line with the Norwegian Environment Agency’s handbook M-1941 for impact assessments. Such a decision can contribute to rather ambiguous signals about how red-listed species should be investigated in planning processes – and is, in my opinion, very unfortunate, says coordinator Gunvar Mikkelsen of the Forum for nature and outdoor life Hordaland in an e-mail to Fanaposten.