WRITTEN QUESTION E-0360/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: Rome urban planning scheme

On 18 June 2002 Rome City Council approved the new general urban planning scheme which, however, far from providing an opportunity to improve conditions in the city, is yet another example of exploiting land and damaging the environment. The scheme envisages a 20 % increase in construction work, using 70 million cubic metres of concrete, thereby flouting the rule on proportionality between volume of building and population, or the ratio between incentives for building work and the provision of services. In actual fact Rome's population is 2,4 million, not 5 million as stated in the scheme, but despite this no provision has been made for adequate facilities, which are currently lacking, such as sewerage systems, pipelines, water supply, lighting and city transport. The least appropriate aspect is the heavy involvement of areas in the city's hinterland and the acquisition, for this purpose, of large tracts of agricultural land for building, which will damage the historical and archaeological heritage, the environment and farming. In addition to this speculative building work, there are also the remaining elements of the existing Urban Parking Plan (PUP), which, because of its dangerous environmental impact, was the subject of a previous question by the same author (25 July 2000) and the Commission's answer (P-2518/00(1)), in which it stressed precisely that the possible cumulative effects of different projects should be sufficiently taken into account. In this context it should be emphasised, in the light of recent Court of Justice case-law (inter alia Case C 319/01 Commission v Belgium and C 348/01 Commission v France) that another city traffic scheme (PGTU) presenting a high environmental risk is being carried out in Rome. A further irregularity in the urban planning scheme concerns the consultation and participation of the public which, according to Article 3(7) and Article 6(5) of Directive 2001/42/EC(2) should always be involved, together with the relevant authorities, when decisions concerning environmental impact are taken. On the contrary, Rome City Council received the details of the scheme ten days after its adoption, and thus only had a few weeks to consider them, formulate proposals and subject the scheme for appropriate consideration and debate.

In the light of the above and the recent joint proposal (PE-CONS 3667/2002) to amend Directive 90/313/EEC(3), approved by the Conciliation Committee on 8 November 2002, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Does it not consider that the environmental impact assessment of the urban planning scheme, if one was carried out, shows substantial irregularities?

2. Have not the rules on informing and consulting the public been infringed?

3. What is the Commission's opinion on the matter?

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 170.

(2) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.

(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it is not possible to conclude that the PRG, General Regulatory Plan for Rome, may be considered as a project under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1), after amendments by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2) (EIA Directive). Therefore, the Honourable Member is kindly requested to refer to the previous response given by the Commission to Written Question E-3921/2002 of Mrs Angelilli(3).

As regards the possible cumulative effects of different projects, it is to be stressed that it is not relevant where the EIA Directive is not applicable.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 129.