RIGA, Nov 13 (LETA) - The Constitutional Court has ruled that amendments to Jurmala's spatial plan, contested by an environmental protection organization, are not in line with the Constitution, the court informed LETA.

The contested provisions of Jurmala spatial plan changed the designated land use type for several land plots in the city: Stirnurags 0601, Bulduri 4508, Bulduri 5912, Jaundubulti 2702, and Pumpuri 3101, authorizing construction of private homes on these land plots.

The plaintiff, an environmental protection association, claimed that the changes to functional zoning in the mentioned areas went against environmental protection principles.

According to the plaintiff, the municipality's changes to Jurmala spatial plan failed to adequately assess potential harm to biodiversity and protected plant species, habitats and biotopes. As a result, Jurmala City Council has violated Article 115 of the Constitution, which stipulates that everyone has the right to live in a benevolent environment.

The development planning system has been established to ensure the country's sustainability, said the Constitutional Court. One of the goals of spatial planning, in accordance with the sustainability principle, is to preserve and create quality environment for present and future generations.

The sustainability principle is also implemented through local governments' sustainable development strategies, which define development priorities and spatial development perspectives. A local government's spatial plan must be developed in line with this strategy. The court concluded that Jurmala City Council, when assessing amendments to the city's spatial plan, failed to ensure that the development plans for the land plots were in line with Jurmala development strategy for 2010-2030.

The Competition Council concluded that, in order to ensure sustainability of the spatial plan, Jurmala City Council had an obligation to prove that the contested provisions achieved a balance between environmental, social, and economic interests - namely, that public benefit outweighed potential environmental harm. However, documents related to the amendments provide no data-based evidence confirming this.

The Constitutional Court's ruling cannot be appealed.