Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the Uzhhorod City Council on the approval of the detailed plan of the territory, which the plaintiffs considered unlawful and requested the court to declare invalid.
2. The court of cassation instance, considering the case, noted the following:
* The courts of previous instances mistakenly applied paragraph 6-3 of section V “Transitional Provisions” of the Law of Ukraine “On Regulation of Urban Development”, since Uzhhorod has a valid General Plan, and the detailed plan of the territory should be developed on its basis and not contradict it. The court departed from the previous position, noting that in cities with a valid general plan, the detailed plan cannot change the functional purpose of the territory defined by the general plan.
* The court agreed with the conclusion of the courts of previous instances that the prevailing type of development in the disputed territory is detached residential development, and the detailed plan does not contradict the General Plan of the city of Uzhhorod.
* The court took into account that at the time of the approval of the detailed plan, there was no valid prohibition on the placement of apartment buildings in the blocks of detached residential development.
* The court noted that the issues of height and density of development are regulated by urban planning conditions and restrictions, and not by the detailed plan of the territory.
* The court found that the detailed plan of the territory does not contain restrictions on the use of the aerodrome area, which is a violation of the Air Code of Ukraine.
* The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the violation of the procedure for holding public hearings, since they were properly informed and had the opportunity to express their comments.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceling the decisions of the courts of previous instances and declaring invalid the provision of the detailed plan of the territory, which allowed the construction of apartment buildings without taking into account the restrictions on the use of the aerodrome area, and dismissed the claim in other part.
