Kommunalt övertagande av huvudmannaskap för allmän plats

Sammanfattning: This thesis deals with how the takeover of the mandatorship for the public space in detailed development plans works. Among other things the thesis examines how common it is among the Swedish municipalities to deal with takeovers. The underlying reasons as to why municipalities carry out takeovers have also been examined, as well as the road associations’ premises in the process. The thesis has been limited to examine the situation when the mandatorship changes from individual to municipal mandatorship where the joint property management association is allowed to cease its administering of public space. Norrköping Municipality has been the initiator to this thesis and has described overtaking of mandatorship as a tedious and time consuming process. Several other municipalities share this view and there is a need to investigate what takeover must and shall include. How the prerequisites differ depending on which party that initiate the takeover are also in need of investigation. The purpose the thesis is to examine what a municipality must include in the effort to take over the mandatorship. The purpose is also to investigate whether the municipalities as they do a takeover, follow the legislation. Also specific obstacles in the approach of the municipalities shall be identified. A survey has been conducted among the country's municipalities to investigate which municipalities are working on the issue. Based on this study, four municipalities were chosen alongside Norrköping Municipality to be examined in-depth. For each municipality four aspects have been examined: the background to takeovers being actualized, the approach, the financing and responsibilities as well as the consequences of the plan amendments. The municipalities’ various ways to approach the process of overtaking the mandatorship have been related to each other and to current legislation. Most indications are that the municipalities that formed the in-depth study handle takeovers in a legally correct manner. The legislator leaves it to a large extent up to the municipalities and the road associations to reach agreements with each other. They deal on, for instance, the financial responsibilities and the standard level of the facilities that are to be acquired. The differences in how the municipalities choose to proceed are mainly in how costs are being distributed between the association and the municipality. Just over one-sixth of the municipalities that responded in the survey stated that they at least once have taken over the mandatorship of public space in detailed development plans. The reasons are mainly due to that the members of the road associations are complaining about the burden of double costs that comes as they pay both municipal taxes and pay for the function of the road association. Among the municipalities that do not implement takeovers, reasons are for example that it is a costly and tedious process. They also state that the road associations are at ease with the possibility of managing their facilities on their own. To achieve a more rational management, a simpler procedure should be developed as for how the takeover of mandatorship shall be followed through. This should be done without causing any of the parties an unreasonable deterioration of its interest. The in many ways easiest method would be to allow the municipality, even in cases where there is no property-related benefit, become participant in a joint facility as the mandatorship is to be overtaken. In this way, the planning work and cadastral procedure are limited to a large extent. How the actual legislation should be formed, as well as how the responsibility for improvements in standards should be regulated, are to be further investigated.