A Critical Review of the Implementation of the Seveso III Directive in the Framework of Land-Use Planning: A Comparative Study of Greece, Cyprus, and Slovakia

Abstract

This research critically examines the integration of the Seveso III Directive into spatial planning, with a focus on land-use policies in Greece, Cyprus, and Slovakia. It specifically focuses on Article 13, which aims to limit the impact of industrial accidents on human health and the environment through land-use and other relevant policies across four key dimensions: (a) land-use planning, (b) development control, (c) mitigation of existing Major Accident Hazards (MAHs), and (d) consultation procedures. The analysis includes the legal, administrative, and regulatory frameworks of each country, enriched with empirical data and case studies focusing on upper-tier oil and gas refineries. The findings reveal distinct procedural and decision-making approaches among the three countries, closely tied to their respective spatial planning systems and traditions. It also highlights weaknesses and best practices within these diverse planning systems, potentially informing initiatives aimed at establishing a more comprehensive institutional and operational framework for MAH protection.

1. Introduction

Several policy documents highlight land-use planning (LUP) near hazardous establishments as a critical factor for ensuring the safety and well-being of citizens in the event of a major accident. Both the 11th goal of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [1] and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 [2] advocate for increased disaster resilience and comprehensive disaster risk management at all levels. Within the EU, the Seveso Directives serve as the primary policy documents that have translated the broad goal of preventing major technological accidents into specific operational principles, shaping the national policies and practices of Member States.

The first Seveso Directive was developed in response to the catastrophic explosion at a chemical plant near Seveso, Italy, in 1976, which exposed thousands to significant amounts of toxic chemicals. In 1982, the European Council enacted Directive 82/501/EEC to control Major Accident Hazards (MAHs) associated with certain industrial activities [3]. Known as the Seveso I Directive, it was substantially revised in 1996 [4], leading to the Seveso II Directive. This revision broadened the scope of the Seveso I Directive, placing greater emphasis on emergency planning, LUP, identification of potential domino effects, and public awareness. Following a 2003 amendment [5], the Directive was further updated in 2012 as the Seveso III Directive [6], which aims to create a continuous improvement cycle for the prevention, preparedness, and response to major accidents. This latest version also categorizes establishments into lower and upper tiers, based on the type and quantity of hazardous substances present [7]. Another innovation is the requirement to consider scenarios involving natural hazards, which, due to climate change, may increasingly trigger technological accidents [8].

The strong relationship between MAHs and LUP was first established in Article 12 of the Seveso II Directive and maintained in Article 13 of the Seveso III Directive. According to these articles, Member States must ensure that the goals of preventing major accidents and limiting their impact on human health and the environment are integrated into land-use (or other relevant) policies. Although the EU has published guidelines on implementing these Directives within land-use planning [9,10,11,12,13], each Member State retains the authority to determine how the Directives are operationalized. This is due to significant administrative and planning differences among EU Member States. Some countries have a strong central administration, others follow a federal model, while some enjoy administrative autonomy at the local level. In terms of planning systems, they range from discretionary to rule-based, including various intermediate forms [14]. These divergences have resulted in a variety of LUP methods and techniques for addressing and mitigating MAH risks across the EU.

However, not all EU states have actively engaged in these discussions through their academic and professional institutions. A review of the literature reveals that, although the general body of work on the Seveso Directives is extensive, studies specifically focusing on their implementation within the LUP framework are scarce. Moreover, there are significant disparities in research output among various European countries (

Table 1. Country-specific studies on the implementation of the Seveso Directives within the land-use planning framework.

Studies/Countries	Italy	France	Netherlands	Greece	UK	Germany	Slovenia	Romania	Spain	Belgium	Austria	Luxembourg	Poland
Walker, 1991 [16]		○	○		○
Papazoglou et al., 1998 [17]				○
Walker et al., 2000 [18]					○
Laheij et al., 2000 [19]			○
Salvi and Gaston, 2002 [20]		○
Caragliano and Manca, 2007 [21]	○
Basta et al., 2007 [22]			○		○
Basta et al., 2008 [11]	○	○	○		○	○
Kontić and Kontić, 2009 [23]							○
Sebos et al., 2010 [24]				○
Camuncoli et al., 2012 [25]	○
Camuncoli et al., 2013 [26]	○
Demichela et al., 2014 [27]	○
Delvosalle et al., 2017 [28]										○
Sebos et al., 2017 [29]				○
Török et al., 2020 [30]								○
Markiewicz, 2020 [31]													○
Laurent et al., 2021 [7]	○	○				○			○
Salvi et al., 2022 [14]	○	○	○	○		○	○		○	○	○	○
Leordean et al., 2023 [32]								○
Kakia et al., 2023 [33]				○

). Some countries, such as Italy, France, the Netherlands, and Greece, are well-represented in the literature, while others, including the UK, Germany, Slovenia, Romania, Spain, and Belgium, have a limited to moderate number of studies. Many Member States, particularly those that joined in the 2004 EU enlargement, are notably absent from this discourse. Although there is a study focusing on these newer Member States [15], it offers only limited insight into LUP.

Beyond geographical disparities, a review of the content of these studies reveals that most focus specifically on the methodological aspects of evaluating risks associated with MAHs. This focus also explains why many such studies are published in engineering journals (e.g., Journal of Hazardous Materials, Chemical Engineering Transactions, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal). While risk assessment is crucial, it represents only a portion of the core issues related to designing and implementing a robust land-use policy within a proactive approach to MAH protection. Key topics, such as the methodologies planning authorities use in development control, the integration of the Directives into development plan provisions, and the design principles applied in LUP, remain understudied, despite their importance for achieving the objectives of Article 13 (discussed in the next section).

Thus, this study aims to critically explore the integration of Article 13′s objectives of the Seveso III Directive within the framework of land-use planning. Specifically, it builds upon the hypothesis that the implementation of Article 13 varies across EU Member States and explores how different planning traditions have shaped policy responses to Article 13 of the Seveso III Directive. Through this analysis, the study also aims to identify weaknesses and best practices across various planning cultures, with the goal of informing initiatives toward a more comprehensive institutional and operational framework for MAH protection through land use policies.

2. Materials and Methods

To critically explore the integration of Article 13′s objectives of the Seveso III Directive, the research adopts a comparative approach focusing on Greece, Cyprus, and Slovakia. The selection of these EU Member States was based on three key criteria.

First, these countries are underrepresented in the international literature concerning the implementation of the Seveso Directives within the context of land-use planning (Table 1). Specifically, most studies on Greece focus on risk assessment and related methodological issues (Table 1), while additional literature on Seveso III implementation tends to focus on areas outside urban planning, such as public health [34]. In the case of Cyprus, available research is similarly limited, with existing studies primarily addressing topics like occupational safety [35]. Slovakia has a somewhat richer body of literature, but it too primarily addresses issues peripheral to land-use planning, such as general overviews [36,37,38], safety management [39,40], public safety [41,42], and technological aspects [43].

Second, these EU Member States are located on the geographical periphery of Europe and also joined the EU at different points in time. Specifically, Greece has been an EU Member State since 1981 and has applied all three Seveso Directives, whereas Cyprus and Slovakia joined the EU in 2004, 8 years after the Seveso II Directive was issued.

Third and most importantly, each of the selected countries has a distinct administrative and planning tradition, which may support the formulation of broader conclusions. Specifically, Greece and Cyprus are characterized by strong central administrations [44,45], whereas Slovakia’s municipalities enjoy planning sovereignty [46]. Moreover, the Greek planning system belongs to the Napoleonic family of planning and is clearly rule-based; the Cypriot system follows the British model, which is highly discretionary; and the Slovak planning system aligns with the Germanic or Central European model, leaning toward a rule-based approach [47,48,49]. Public participation in planning also varies significantly: it is highly valued in Slovakia but almost absent in Greece [44,46].

Regarding the topics covered by the research, these reflect the structure and the objectives of Article 13 of the Seveso III Directive. The primary mission of Article 13 is to ensure that Member States incorporate the objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting their consequences on human health and the environment into their land-use or other relevant policies. In practice, implementing Article 13 involves actions in four key dimensions:

• Land-use planning: Member States must ensure that LUP establishes appropriate safety distances between Seveso establishments and areas sensitive to MAHs (Art. 13, par. 2a and 2b).
• Development control: Development control should ensure that LUP provisions are thoroughly applied, covering new Seveso establishments (par. 1a), modifications to existing ones (par. 1b), and any other developments or modifications near existing Seveso establishments (par. 1c).
• Mitigation of existing MAHs: MAHs may already exist in our cities, stemming from decisions made and environments shaped before the application of the Seveso Directives, and such MAHs need to be mitigated (par. 2c).
• Consultation procedures: Planning authorities must establish effective consultation procedures to facilitate Seveso III Directive objectives, while information on risks from Seveso establishments should be available when decisions are made (par. 3).

As a result, the analysis begins with an overview of each country’s planning system, which provides the broader framework within which the four key dimensions of Article 13 are implemented. Specifically, land-use planning constitutes the first dimension and is examined in relation to the degree of integration of the Seveso III Directive across different types of plans (national, regional, local). The second dimension concerns the development control, which is accomplished through the building permit policies. This process is influenced by the “institutional technology” [50], which governs the granting of new permits for establishments (either Seveso or other types) or modifications to existing ones within designated risk zones. The third dimension addresses the mitigation of existing MAHs and is assessed in relation to institutional and operational procedures. Lastly, the fourth dimension concerns the consultation procedures and focuses on procedural and decision-making approaches regarding the allocation and development of Seveso establishments.

With respect to the overall approach applied across all four dimensions of study outlined above, the methodology combines desk research with the experience-based knowledge of the authors, who have acted as planning consultants in similar cases. Desk research includes the study of the national and local legislative framework (laws, legal acts, decisions of public planning bodies), the study of planning documents, and a study of official data published on various web platforms. To clarify land-use policies further, the research is supplemented by empirical data and case studies focusing on existing Seveso establishments, such as upper-tier oil and gas refineries. Although the selected case studies are limited to specific cities, they are considered indicative of broader national trends. The experience-based knowledge of the authors derives from their involvement in the preparation of land-use plans involving Seveso establishments and development control procedures and is central to understanding the actual administrative and political processes.

Finally, to facilitate comparative analysis, the findings for each dimension of Article 13 are discussed within the context of the three principles proposed by the European Working Group (EWG) on Land-Use Planning for best practices in LUP and risk assessment [10] (pp. 23–25). These principles are as follows: (a) consistency, which indicates that the outcomes from broadly similar situations should be broadly the same under similar conditions; (b) proportionality (or reasonableness), which suggests that the recommended constraints should be proportional to the level of risk; and (c) transparency, which involves a clear understanding of the decision-making process. The comparative analysis has been limited to the meaningful intersections only (

Table 2. Intersections between the key dimensions of Article 13 and the basic principles proposed by the EWG on LUP.

	Land-Use Planning	Development Control	Mitigation of Existing MAHs	Consultation Procedures
Consistency	○		○
Proportionality		○
Transparency	○	○		○

Source: editing by authors.

).

3. Results

3.1. The Case of Greece

3.1.1. Overview of the Planning System and Integration of the Directives

Since the 1990s, the Greek spatial planning system has evolved to incorporate principles from the European planning discourse [51]. The most recent reform, in 2020 (L.4759/2020), focused on restructuring local-level spatial planning [52]. This reform retained the rule-based nature of the planning system but did not address long-standing issues, such as overregulation, administrative inefficiencies [53], legislative complexity, and the existence of parallel mechanisms for development control at the local level ([54], p. 323) [55].

The planning system is structured across three hierarchical levels—national, regional, and local—with the national and local levels being the most influential. Each level encompasses one or more types of spatial plans, each with varying degrees of binding authority [56]. The national level includes the National Spatial Strategy and Special Spatial Plans, which are sectoral strategic plans focusing on industry, tourism, and renewable energy resources. The regional level includes Regional Spatial Plans, which are strategic plans prepared for each region. At the local level, there are two types of land-use plans with the highest binding authority—the Local Urban Plan and the Urban Study—both of which are binding. The Local Urban Plan (formerly known as the General Urban Plan) is developed for each municipality. It takes a comprehensive approach by integrating various public policies, defining land-use zones, and specifying development rights within each zone. The Urban Study is an exclusively regulatory plan that aligns with the Local Urban Plan’s provisions, detailing land uses and building regulations [52]. In parallel, there are many horizontal (national) laws that regulate urban development, especially in areas that lack land-use planning or complement the main provisions of Local Urban Plans. In summary, Greece’s spatial planning system “remains highly centralized, with local authorities limited to an advisory role” ([57] p. 596).

Development control is conducted through the building permit policy. This is addressed by the “conformative” model that adopts a plan-control relationship [58]. The delivery of building permits is subject to the control of their conformity to the plan [50]. Decision-making on planning or building applications does not involve consultation with applicants or other governmental or non-governmental bodies in order to ensure some degree of certainty of public control over spatial development [59]. Permitted uses and development rights are rigidly defined by the Local Urban Plan. This offers some degree of certainty to owners and developers, but at the same time restricts the fulfillment of the public strategy through rigid zoning and codes.

Legally, the Seveso III Directive was incorporated into Greek national law through the Interministerial Decision 172058/2016 (Gazette 354/B/2016), which amended the legislation implementing previous Seveso Directives. However, as discussed below, various issues related to the applicability of this decision remain unresolved.

3.1.2. Land-Use Planning

The integration of the Seveso III Directive into LUP varies significantly across different types of plans, and even among plans of the same type. Starting at the national level, the 2008 Special Spatial Plan for Industry, which remains in force, entirely overlooks the regulation of Seveso establishments and provides no guidance on this matter. At the regional level, approaches within the various Regional Spatial Plans (RSPs) are inconsistent and sometimes even contradictory [60]. Specifically, most RSPs do not explicitly address Seveso establishments. The RSP for the Ionian Islands supports preserving existing establishments in selected locations, while the RSP for Eastern Macedonia-Thrace calls for assessing the compatibility of existing Seveso establishments with surrounding land uses, but it lacks methodological guidance for this assessment and offers no alternatives in cases of incompatibility. The RSP for Central Macedonia is the only one recognizing that hazardous facilities should ideally be relocated to designated industrial areas, but it defers this responsibility to lower levels of planning. Acknowledging that relocations may not be feasible, the plan recommends that existing establishments implement additional technical safety measures, although it does not outline a framework for achieving this. Furthermore, it stipulates that Seveso establishments previously granted planning or building permissions, yet no longer compatible with current land uses, need not relocate as long as they maintain a minimum distance of 1 km from the nearest residential area. This provision effectively allows the continued operation of many hazardous activities.

The lack of a clear policy on Seveso establishments at the regional level introduces subjectivity in the preparation of Local Urban Plans, ultimately leading to conflicting provisions at the local level. This is evident in the General Urban Plans of two neighboring municipalities, which propose radically different policies for regulating Seveso establishments (

Table 3. Comparative provisions regulating Seveso establishments in the neighboring Municipality Units (MU) of Echedoros and Kallithea (source: Gazette 304/AAP/2011 and Gazette 165/AAP/2011).

	Municipality of Echedoros	Municipality of Kallithea
Development of a new Seveso establishment	Prohibited	Permitted
Modification of an existing Seveso establishment	Permitted, only if the modification reduces, among other factors, the impact on the surrounding area in the event of a major accident	Permitted within the plot of the establishment, regardless of compatibility with current land uses
Requirement for a comprehensive study of Seveso establishments within the study area	Yes, to be completed within the next 5 years	No

). The contradiction is particularly pronounced within the Industrial Area of Thessaloniki (known as BIPETh) (Figure 1), one of Greece’s most developed industrial zones, spanning both municipalities. In one part of this area, located in one municipality, new Seveso establishments are prohibited, while in the adjacent part, under the jurisdiction of the neighboring municipality, they are permitted [60]. This is a key example that reflects the lack of consistency in LUP in the aftermath of the absence of guidelines at the regional level. In turn, this allows the subjectivity of planners and local authorities in the decision-making of Local Urban Plans, resulting in fragmented urban plans and provisions.

3.1.3. Development Control

For development control of new establishments (either Seveso or other types) or modifications to existing ones within risk zones, the decision of the building authority is generally based on the following: (a) firstly, the compatibility of the proposed development with land uses and other provisions specified in the respective Local Urban Plan or Urban Study following the ‘conformative model’, which is in operation in southern Europe, and secondary, (b) the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), as well as (c) the provisions of the Safety Report, which, in practice, delineates various risk zones and imposes restrictions on the development of surrounding activities.

While this procedure appears straightforward, the fragmented integration of the Seveso Directive into the Greek spatial planning system, combined with the lack of clear operational guidelines and insufficient coordination between land-use and environmental policies, has led to numerous contradictions and issues in development control. A notable example is the revocation by Greece’s Supreme Administrative Court (Council of State decisions No. 1678/2015 and 3020/2015) of two residential building permits issued for western Thessaloniki. The court’s rationale was that, although the new developments were located within residential zones, the planning authority did not consider the provisions of the Safety Report. According to the report, both developments were situated in a high-risk zone (outlined in red in Figure 2) near a Seveso establishment, and new residential development should not have been permitted in that area. The omission of the Safety Report’s provisions should not be seen as a random omission; it reflects deeper issues within the institutional framework and existing administrative deficiencies [52]. Additionally, strict adherence to these provisions would imply the rejection of any development application within a substantial area of Thessaloniki, highlighting the unfeasibility of the current regulatory approach.

3.1.4. Mitigation of Existing MAHs

The implementation of the Seveso III Directive concerning existing Seveso establishments is fragmented. Neither the state nor local authorities have taken action to relocate Seveso establishments, despite pressing issues and recommendations from regional plans. For instance, the RSP for Central Macedonia proposed a special study for Thessaloniki’s western area [60], where large portions of the urban fabric lie within the risk zones of nearby Seveso establishments (Figure 2), contributing to increased social, environmental, and spatial vulnerability [33]. More concerning is that, regardless of provisions in regional and local plans, a horizontal provision (Article 7 of Law 3325/2005) granted Seveso establishments across the country the legal right to continue operating for an additional 20 years (until 2025). Even though LUP may prohibit the siting of a new Seveso establishment, the existing Seveso may be allowed to operate and sometimes be modified and expanded, ignoring the principle of proportionality. In short, this time extension has effectively encouraged institutional and operational inertia at all levels, since the centralized administration regulates and has the main responsibility.

3.1.5. Consultation Procedures

The recent reform of the spatial planning system mandates a comprehensive review of all existing Seveso establishments during the creation of new land-use plans. Consequently, the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for any future land-use plan will incorporate reliable data and relevant information about the risks associated with Seveso establishments, ensuring that environmental impacts are identified and evaluated during the planning process and before plan adoption. To further enhance public awareness and increase the credibility and transparency of the process, the Ministry of Environment and Energy has published a list of all Seveso establishments on a public geo-portal. However, this list is not regularly updated. Additionally, regional authorities are required to maintain a public register of Seveso establishments within their jurisdiction, including details about each establishment and associated hazards. Despite this requirement, the level of data availability varies across regions, meaning that public awareness and consultation processes are not fully optimized.

3.2. The Case of Cyprus

3.2.1. Overview of the Planning System and Integration of the Directives

The spatial planning system in Cyprus is founded on the common-law tradition, shaped by the desire to achieve a flexible response to future development [62]. It is governed by the Town and Country Planning Law of 1972 [63], which is based on Britain’s Town and Country Planning Act of the 1960s [64] (pp. 59–61). It includes two planning levels: national and local. However, the national level has been inactive since 1974 due to the Turkish invasion of the island [65]. The local level encompasses three types of development plans, all of which feature detailed land-use zones, permit extensive exercise of discretion, and carry strong legal authority within their respective administrative units, essentially acting as local law [45]. This planning system, established on British tradition, is based on indicative and non-binding zoning for the comprehensive urban area, allowing rights for land use and for spatial development to be allocated contextually with the potential granting of the building permit ([59] p. 4).

Within this type of spatial planning system, labelled as the ‘performative’ model, development control is addressed by discretionary decisions. The delivery of building permits is subject to “the negotiation of the proposed development projects in order to ensure (…) their capacity to perform the public strategy”, which is transposed to non-mandatory local plans (p. 1003) [50]. In Cyprus, the Town and Country Planning Law requires the competent planning authority to review planning applications, considering the provisions of the development plan and any other relevant factors. This review is based on the assessments of the public authority or the consultations with other government departments, local authorities, and other agencies or individuals, and it results in assigning rights to those projects that have been reviewed or enhanced through negotiation, for their capacity to implement the spatial strategy. The performative model offers greater flexibility to public action of spatial governance, but at the same time, it induces uncertainty for developers.

Cypriot legislation aligned with the Seveso II Directive in 2001 as part of its efforts to harmonize with the European acquis. This involved the publication of the Regulations on the Management of Major Accident Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances of 2001 [66], which was later replaced by updated regulations [67,68]. Regarding specifically the incorporation of Article 13 of the Seveso III Directive into the local legislation, this was accomplished with the publication of the Town and Country Planning Regulations (Accidents Associated to Hazardous Substances) of 2003 [69], which has since been superseded by newer regulations [70,71]. These regulations, as discussed next, provide the methodological framework for the development control of Seveso establishments and other uses within their catchment areas.

3.2.2. Land-Use Planning

In preparing a development plan, the planning authority takes steps to prevent MAHs and mitigate their effects on human health and the environment. The planning authority’s approach to this challenge is threefold [65]. First, planning authorities consult with the Department of Labor Inspection to ensure that Heavy Industry Zones, which allow Seveso establishments, are located at appropriate distances from nearby uses, infrastructure, and environmentally sensitive areas (Figure 3a). Second, where Industrial Zones are situated within residential areas, these zones are surrounded by Protection (buffer) Zones to reduce the impact of any potential MAH (Figure 3b). Third, the authorities inform the public of their right to participate actively in the development plan preparation, particularly concerning the zoning of areas that permit Seveso establishments.

3.2.3. Development Control

In terms of development control, Cyprus has established a well-structured framework for implementing Article 13. Within a predefined catchment area of an existing Seveso establishment, the planning authority follows the examination procedure outlined in the relevant regulations. The identification of a development as a Seveso establishment is based on the type and quantity of hazardous substances involved ([67] Annex I). The radius of predefined catchment areas varies according to the type of establishment; for instance, the catchment area of a refinery is set at 1500 m ([73] p. 71). In all cases, the planning authority consults with the Director of the Department of Labor Inspection, whose opinion is considered a critical factor in deciding whether to reject or proceed with the examination of a planning application [70].

The Director of the Department of Labor Inspection formulates their opinion based on a coherent and transparent methodological framework. This includes projecting the risk zones defined in the Seveso establishment’s safety report, assessing the vulnerability levels of uses within these zones, and conducting compatibility checks between the risk zones and the vulnerability levels of nearby uses [74]. Additionally, for planning applications involving the modification of an existing facility (whether a Seveso establishment or another type of use), the Director applies less stringent criteria, as a negative opinion would necessitate either the prevention of the modification or the facility’s relocation, potentially resulting in further complex challenges [74] (pp. 13–16).

3.2.4. Mitigation of Existing MAHs

The well-structured framework for implementing Article 13 within development control (see Section 3.2.3) lacks mechanisms to address existing Seveso establishments that may pose MAHs unless they apply for planning permission. To address this gap, the Department of Labor Inspection has identified MAHs and, in collaboration with the Ministry of Interior, initiated informal negotiations with all relevant parties to seek feasible solutions.

Two significant cases were identified and subsequently resolved. The first involved an ammunition industry located within residential areas, which agreed to reduce its storage quantity of hazardous substances to be reclassified as a non-Seveso establishment [75]. The second, more complex case involved a concentration of oil refineries and storage facilities for petroleum products and LPG near a densely populated urban area in Larnaca. In this instance, prolonged negotiations resulted in the complete relocation of all facilities (Figure 4) to a designated heavy industry area [76,77]. Consensus has been achieved even though negotiations had a shadowed dimension.

Finally, despite the generally positive assessment of the functioning of the MAH prevention system in Cyprus, it was not sufficient to prevent the major accident that occurred on 11 July 2011. Specifically, a massive explosion at a munitions dump at the Mari Naval Base in Cyprus resulted in the death of 13 people, including army officials, soldiers, and firefighters. In addition to the loss of life, the disaster caused extensive material damage to both the army base and the adjacent Vasilikos Power Station, which supplies 50% of the country’s electricity. This led to widespread power outages across the island [78]. It is important to note that the storage at Mari did not involve a typical industrial installation, but rather a military base, which is not covered by the relevant legislation [79]. Nevertheless, the resulting human and material losses prompted the Council of Ministers to introduce, in 2024, stricter thresholds for facilities that store or handle significant quantities of hazardous chemical substances [80].

3.2.5. Consultation Procedures

Discretionary planning systems incorporate extensive, well-established consultation and negotiation processes [81]. The Cypriot system, in particular, includes various forms of collaborative decision-making, evident in both formal procedures—such as the preparation of development plans and the review of planning applications (see Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.2.3)—and informal processes, like the relocation of existing Seveso establishments (see Section 3.2.4). Additionally, a registry of all upper- and lower-tier Seveso establishments, along with their safety reports and EIA studies, is readily accessible to the public1.

3.3. The Case of Slovakia

3.3.1. Overview of the Planning System and Integration of the Directives

Slovakia’s planning system has its roots in the Habsburg monarchy and aligns with Central European planning traditions [46]. Its current legal framework reflects both the post-1989 political changes and adjustments made during the EU pre-accession period. The system is decentralized, with decision-making powers transferred to the local (municipal) and regional (self-governing regional) levels.

The Slovak planning system comprises four types of land-use plans at the national, regional, and local levels. Plans at the national and regional levels outline the spatial organization of their respective territories. At the level of the municipality, there are the local land-use plans, which provide a comprehensive view of the territory and are more detailed in defining land uses within each planning zone. These local plans carry significant legal authority and function as local law. The Slovak planning system also recognizes zonal land-use plans. These are not obliged and prepared, if needed, within municipalities, mostly in larger cities, on a delineated area that is about to be developed. They are more detailed and should provide the following: (1) more detailed spatial arrangement and functional use of land, buildings, public transport, and technical equipment of the area; (2) location of buildings on individual plots of land and in urban areas; and (3) building conditions of individual construction plots. The Ministry of Transport and Construction is the primary authority for spatial planning, approving regional spatial plans and overseeing legal regulations. The Ministry of the Environment focuses on environmental aspects of spatial planning and is also responsible for approving Seveso establishments.

Regarding the main authorities involved, planning permissions are issued by municipalities and self-governing regions, which consider input from various sources in their decision-making processes. The domestic spatial planning system seems to be aligned with the model of ‘neo-performative’ planning, which is applied in Western Europe, in the Baltic Region, and in some Eastern European countries ([59] p. 9). This model is based on binding zoning as a ‘final balance’ [50]. In particular, land use rights are generally established by general urban plans. However, the binding land-use plans that regard smaller areas and assign spatial development rights are subject to verification on a case-by-case basis, usually after negotiations with developers have taken place ([59] p. 9).

The Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents Law [81] incorporated the Seveso III Directive into Slovak law in 2015 [82].

3.3.2. Land-Use Planning

The Slovak Republic has taken specific steps to implement Article 13 across various planning levels. National and regional plans provide a general locational framework for Seveso establishments, while local plans define specific types of protection zones around each existing Seveso establishment [83], following horizontal guidelines [84]. Specifically, primary protection zones are designated to safeguard the surrounding area in the event of a major accident. Beyond these, hygiene protection zones may be established as needed, based on the type, size, and operational status of the establishment, as well as local environmental protection requirements. Safety protection zones are set on a case-by-case basis, reflecting the establishment’s history of malfunctions and/or safety analyses and assessments. All of these zones are incorporated into local land-use plans (Figure 5), are legally binding, and play a central role in development control.

3.3.3. Development Control

The Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents Law requires planning authorities to ensure—through development control—that sufficient distances are maintained between Seveso establishments and neighboring land uses in accordance with defined protection zones. For instance, residential development is prohibited within any protection zone, while other uses may be permitted depending on the decision of the local planning authority.

To make an informed decision, the planning authority considers inputs from multiple sources. First, it reviews the findings of the Safety Report. Second, it evaluates both the probability and severity of potential industrial accidents, as well as the associated risks and their acceptability. All Seveso establishments are subject to an EIA, which identifies the direct and indirect environmental impacts of the proposed development, recommends measures to mitigate negative externalities, and ensures adequate stakeholder engagement [86]. Third, the planning authority consults with the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Building Control, utility companies, and other relevant stakeholders [83,85].

3.3.4. Mitigation of Existing MAHs

Implementing the Seveso Directive through development control creates a gap in managing existing Seveso establishments that do not apply for planning permission. This gap is problematic, as these establishments constitute MAHs and hinder development in surrounding areas. A notable example is the Slovnaft oil refinery, founded in 1895 at a distance from Bratislava; however, the city’s expansion eventually brought it close. When protection zones were designated in 2001 (Figure 4), specific restrictions were imposed on nearby (existing and new) developments, since:

• Within the primary protection zone, any existing use must be relocated to a suitable new location;
• Within the safety protection zone, all new development is prohibited, and even modifications to existing buildings are not allowed;
• Within the hygiene protection zone, which extends deeply into the urban fabric, any development of residential, educational, recreational, welfare, or health facilities is prohibited.

The strict and inflexible nature of these provisions renders them difficult to implement. Notably, the protection zones for the Slovnaft refinery appear smaller than those of other similar Seveso establishments, particularly in the primary and safety protection zones, which seem intentionally delineated to avoid encroaching on residential areas. While this approach may be effective bureaucratically, it does not adequately serve the protection of the wider area.

Debates over relocating the Slovnaft refinery have persisted for decades [87,88,89], but they remain theoretical due to the facility’s size and significance to the national economy. Since the onset of the war in Ukraine in early 2022 and related geopolitical challenges (e.g., reliance on Russian gas), discussions have shifted toward major reconstruction of the refinery rather than relocation [90,91].

3.3.5. Consultation Procedures

Various government departments, utility companies, and other relevant stakeholders are consulted by the planning authority within the framework of development control (see Section 3.3.3). Additionally, the public is provided with multiple opportunities for participation. For example, authorities are tasked with actively seeking public input to promote transparency in decision-making during the preparation of land-use plans. Public engagement is also anticipated in the SEA of regional and local plans [86]. Lastly, the Ministry of the Environment has mapped all Seveso establishments and made this information accessible to the public via a dedicated portal2. This portal includes details on each establishment (e.g., operator, activities, hazardous substances) and other relevant information, such as contact details for accident prevention specialists [92].

4. Discussion

This study has examined the implementation of Article 13 in Greece, Cyprus, and Slovakia across four areas: land-use planning, development control, mitigation of existing MAHs, and consultation procedures. The main findings are summarized in

Table 4. Comparative overview of main findings on the implementation of Article 13 of the Seveso III Directive by case study (source: authors).

	Greece	Cyprus	Slovakia
Land-use planning	Fragmented integration	Strong integration	Adequate integration
	○ Lack of general guidelines ○ Contradictory and unjustified approaches to local and regional plans	○ Pro-active land use planning (design of protection zones and heavy industry receptors)	○ Delineation of protection zones based on a specific methodology ○ Questionable objectivity in delineating protection zones
Development control	Partially adequate	Adequate	Partially adequate
Development of a new Seveso establishment	○ Adequate; decision is based on land-use plans, EIA, and Safety Report	○ Adequate; development allowed in designated receptors following consultations; EIA and Safety Reports prepared	○ Adequate; decisions based on land-use plans, EIA, Safety Report, and consultations
Modification to the existing Seveso establishment	○ Adequate; decisions based on land-use plans, EIA, and Safety Report	○ Adequate; planning decision is guided by a clear methodology including quantitative criteria, targeted consultations, and feasibility considerations	○ Partially adequate; regulatory framework is in place, but its strictness and rigidity inhibit effective implementation
Development/modification of another type of establishment near the existing Seveso	○ Inadequate; issues due to unclear institutional framework, impractical provisions, and administrative deficiencies	○ Adequate; planning decision is guided by a clear methodology, including quantitative criteria and targeted consultations	○ Partially adequate; regulatory framework is in place, but strictness and rigidity inhibit effective implementation
Mitigation of existing MAHs	Inadequate mitigation	Full mitigation	Inadequate mitigation
	○ Lack of political will (mostly rhetorical efforts) ○ Institutional framework promotes inertia	○ Strong political will (decision for relocation) ○ Lack of an appropriate institutional framework	○ Lack of political will ○ Lack of an appropriate institutional framework
Consultation procedures	Inadequate	Well-established	Well-established
	○ Lack of a consultation culture ○ Lack of a participatory planning process ○ The portal provides basic but outdated information	○ Diverse agencies consulted ○ Planning authorities experienced in consultation processes ○ Established participatory planning processes ○ Information available but not centralized	○ Diverse agencies consulted ○ Established participatory planning processes ○ Dedicated portal provides accessible public information

. Additionally, the comparative perspective is analyzed through the meaningful intersections with the three principles of consistency, proportionality, and transparency (see Section 2, Table 2).

In terms of land-use planning, Greece represents the most problematic case, lacking a systematic approach, which can lead to inconsistent planning decisions. This inconsistency results from the fragmented integration of Article 13 into Greece’s spatial planning system. Regional plans establish varying guidelines, while local land-use plans often have significantly different provisions, even in areas with similar characteristics. The lack of consistency is evident not only across levels of planning but even within the same territory, such as in the case of the Industrial Area of Thessaloniki, which is covered by two neighboring land-use plans. This fragmentation is clearly related to reduced transparency, too, as the decision-making process remains unclear. In contrast, Cyprus and Slovakia have achieved a high degree of integration of Article 13 in their planning systems, using different methods and techniques that align with the principles of consistency and transparency.

Concerning development control, Cyprus has established a clear and coherent methodological framework for granting new permits. This framework categorizes development types and establishes benchmarks for each, based on their vulnerability level and their location within the estimated risk zone of the Seveso establishment. Since benchmarks are proportional to the level of risk, the development control is aligned with the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, within the discretionary planning system of Cyprus, decisions are made on a case-by-case basis based on targeted consultation that is driven by public authorities. This ensures the capacity for better public control and reinforces the principle of transparency, even though it cannot be ruled out that market forces may “have enough power to direct public decisions towards their own interests” ([93] p. 15). In contrast, Greece and Slovakia lack formal methodologies and established tolerability criteria, leading sometimes to more subjective or unreasonable decision-making, despite their binding land-use plans. This is particularly evident in Greece, as demonstrated in the case of the revocation of two residential building permits within designated risk zones.

Regarding the mitigation of MAHs, Cyprus stands out, having successfully relocated oil refineries and storage facilities that posed MAHs. In Greece, the relocation of certain industrial concentrations has been proposed; however, these discussions remain largely rhetorical, with no substantive measures developed to support relocation efforts or promote the principle of consistency. Similarly, while the relocation of some industrial areas has been discussed in Slovakia, no actions have been taken to implement these plans.

Consultation processes were evaluated based on two sub-factors reflecting transparency: (a) data availability and accessibility, and (b) a clear decision-making process, including defined responsibilities for key stakeholders. Notably, all three countries have published lists of Seveso establishments, although Greece’s list is not frequently updated, leading to potential data obsolescence. Each Seveso establishment is also subject to an EIA, which identifies and evaluates environmental impacts prior to project authorization. Although EIAs are subject to public consultation, public awareness and engagement in these processes cannot be assumed. Furthermore, the publication of EIAs does not necessarily guarantee a clear decision-making process. Cyprus has, in practice, a transparent enough decision-making process. It has established a clear set of benchmarks that outline decision factors, thereby guiding the decision-making process and minimizing the discretion of key actors. Slovakia demonstrates an adequate level of transparency. The planning authority considers input from various sources and consults with key stakeholders; however, the delineation of protection zones around the country’s major oil refinery suggests a possible bias to avoid conflicts with existing land uses. Greece presents a unique case: while transparency is technically ensured from an institutional and administrative (i.e., bureaucratic) standpoint, it lacks effective participatory planning processes. In addition to that, key actors have been proven ineffective in exercising their responsibilities, as demonstrated by the revocation of the two issued residential building permissions, an indication of administrative deficiencies within the planning system.

In short, the Cypriot discretionary planning system demonstrates the highest adherence to the principles of consistency, transparency, and proportionality in LUP policies, which results in a more successful integration of the Seveso III Directive into spatial planning. On the contrary, Greece’s conformative planning system shows the most limited integration of these principles and, consequently, has a low level of implementation of the key dimensions of Article 13 of the Seveso III Directive. Slovakia, which is aligned more closely to the neo-performative planning system, exhibits an intermediate degree of incorporation of the three aforementioned principles.

5. Conclusions

The results of the above analysis on the implementation of Article 13 of the Seveso III Directive are examined through the lens of the different planning systems and traditions in the three countries. The findings reveal that the distinct legal, institutional, and administrative characteristics of each country significantly influence land-use planning, development control, mitigation of MAHs, and consultation procedures. This comparison may also offer reflections on the implementation of the Seveso III Directive within the wider European policy framework regarding spatial planning across Member States.

Specifically, Greece may be regarded as a representative case of the Southern European countries that adhere to a conformative planning system. Greece has a strict, rule-based planning system, in which consultation processes are often more bureaucratic than substantive. Land-use zoning is dominant and relies on generic land-use categories. Consequently, development control decisions are often made on a generic basis, constrained by strict land-use types within risk zones. As discussed in Section 4, Greece demonstrates the lowest degree of implementation of the Seveso III Directive among the three studied countries, a situation largely attributable to the inertia of land-use planning mechanisms and the reluctance of planning authorities when faced with complex decisions. In addition, lengthy procedures hinder active stakeholder engagement, particularly in cases involving conflicting views. All these are elements that reflect the rigidity of the planning system and imply that countries with similar planning characteristics and/or traditions may have difficulties in integrating the key objectives of the Seveso III Directive into their planning systems.

In contrast, Cyprus has successfully integrated the key objectives of the Directive, demonstrating the potential for effective integration in countries that follow a performative planning system. The discretionary planning system of Cyprus enables development control to focus on the specific characteristics of each case and facilitates the incorporation of new parameters, techniques, and procedures into established practices and/or processes. This, in turn, allows for greater flexibility in planning and development control regarding the development or modification of Seveso establishments. Such adaptability is further supported by the limited number of spatial planning levels and its small geographical size, which intensifies political pressure on leadership and decision-making processes.

Slovakia exhibits a blend of rigid and flexible elements, offering valuable insights into the countries that follow a neo-performative planning system. While generic approaches based on binding land-use plans are prevalent in Slovakia, the development control exercised by the planning authority also takes into account inputs from multiple sources, thereby reducing the rigidity of decision-making.

Ultimately, specific fundamental elements of a planning system (e.g., government and municipal competencies, roles of planning and local authorities, types of consultation processes, the degree of flexibility in planning, and public action), along with established planning practices, appear to play a critical role in the implementation of the objectives of Article 13.

Last but not least, political will emerges as another key factor in the effective implementation of Article 13′s objectives, as illustrated by the Cypriot case study. In particular, strong political will initiated effective consultation processes that led to the mitigation of existing MAHs, despite the absence of a pertinent institutional framework. The effectiveness of political will was reinforced by the capacity and responsiveness of administrative mechanisms. In countries with significant administrative deficiencies, such as Greece, political will, even if present, would likely be insufficient on its own to achieve similar outcomes.

In addition, there appears to be no direct correlation between the timing of a country’s entry into the European Community (EC) and the extent of the implementation of the Seveso Directives. Greece, the first of the three countries to join the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1981, has institutionalized all three Seveso Directives, yet their integration remains limited. In contrast, Cyprus and Slovakia, which joined in 2004, have achieved more comprehensive integration. In short, while European policies provide an overarching institutional framework, their effective implementation depends on the political will, as well as the institutional and administrative characteristics specific to each Member State.

To conclude, the analysis of the implementation of Article 13 of the Seveso Directive in the selected countries highlights specific practices shaped by their distinct planning traditions. While some of these practices may not be directly transferable to other countries, they can still serve as valuable starting points for constructive dialogue and reflection on land-use planning. Countries that adhere to conformative planning could draw valuable insights from the Cypriot approach, such as establishing a framework of guidelines along with negotiation mechanisms to manage risks associated with Seveso establishments, and to evaluate new developments on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, countries whose planning systems incorporate discretionary elements in decision-making should critically examine their regulatory mechanisms to reduce exposure to political and societal scrutiny, particularly in the event of a major accident.