Next Article in Journal
Sustainable City Strategies for Strategic Digital City Project in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Context
Previous Article in Journal
Monitoring Slope Stability: A Comprehensive Review of UAV Applications in Open-Pit Mining
Previous Article in Special Issue
Harnessing Street Canyons for Comprehensive Nature-Based Solutions
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

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

1
Department of Architecture, Land and Environmental Sciences, Neapolis University Pafos, 8042 Paphos, Cyprus
2
Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, 382 21 Volos, Greece
3
Spectra Centre of Excellence of the EU, Department of Spatial Planning, Institute of Management, STU Bratislava, 812 43 Bratislava, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(6), 1194; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14061194
Submission received: 27 April 2025 / Revised: 27 May 2025 / Accepted: 28 May 2025 / Published: 3 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Efficient Land Use and Sustainable Development in European Countries)

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). 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).

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). 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. 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.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, I.P. and G.G.; formal analysis, I.P. for Cyprus, G.G. for Greece, and M.H. for Slovakia; writing—original draft preparation, review, and editing, I.P. and G.G.; visualization, I.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
MAHsMajor Accident Hazards
LUPLand-Use Planning
EECEuropean Economic Community
EUEuropean Union
RSPsRegional Spatial Plans
EIAEnvironmental Impact Assessment

Notes

1
The registry of the Seveso establishments is available at: https://tinyurl.com/3mwfsmwh (accessed on 27 May 2025). Safety reports are available at: https://tinyurl.com/ypr9mrwm (accessed on 27 May 2025). EIA studies are available at: https://eia.moa.gov.cy/public/index.html#start (accessed on 27 May 2025).
2
The Information System for the Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents portal is available at: https://app.sazp.sk/sevesopublic/ (accessed on 27 May 2025).

References

  1. UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In Proceedings of the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit, New York, NY, USA, 25 September 2015. [Google Scholar]
  2. UNISDR. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030; United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. EC. Council Directive of 24 June 1982 on the Major-Accident Hazards of Certain Industrial Activities (82/501/EEC). Off. J. Eur. Communities 1982, 230, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  4. EC. Council Directive of 9 December 1996 on the Control of Major-Accident Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances (Directive 96/82/EC). Off. J. Eur. Communities 1997, 110, 13–33. [Google Scholar]
  5. EC. Directive of 16 December 2003 Amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the Control of Major-Accident Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances (Directive 2003/105/EC). Off. J. Eur. Union 2003, 345, 97–105. [Google Scholar]
  6. EC. Directive of 4 July 2012 on the Control of Major-Accident Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances, Amending and Subsequently Repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC (Directive 2012/18/EU). Off. J. Eur. Union 2012, 197, 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  7. Laurent, A.; Pey, A.; Gurtel, P.; Fabiano, B. A Critical Perspective on the Implementation of the EU Council Seveso Directives in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 148, 47–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pilone, E.; Demichela, M.; Camuncoli, G. Na-Tech Risk: A New Challenge for Local Planners. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2022, 90, 223–228. [Google Scholar]
  9. Christou, M.D.; Porter, S. Guidance on Land Use Planning as Required by Council Directive 96/82/EC (Seveso II); Report EUR 18695; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 1999; Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/aa0e7566-f887-4561-9948-8d70ceae7413 (accessed on 27 May 2025).
  10. Christou, M.D.; Struckl, M.; Biermann, T. Land Use Planning Guidelines in the Context of Article 12 of the Seveso II Directive 96/82/EC as Amended by Directive 105/2003/EC; Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Hazard Assessment Unit: Ispra, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  11. Basta, C.; Struckl, M.; Christou, M. Implementing Article 12 of the Seveso II Directive: Overview of Roadmaps for Land-Use Planning in Selected Member States; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (OPOCE): Luxembourg, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  12. UNECE. Guidance on Land-Use Planning, the Siting of Hazardous Activities and Related Safety Aspects; United Nations Economic Commission for Europe: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gyenes, Z.; Wood, M.; Struckl, M. Handbook of Scenarios for Assessing Major Chemical Accident Risks; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  14. Salvi, O.; Caillard, B.; Bolvin, C.; Lheureux, E.; Benjelloun, F. Benchmark of European Practices for Land-Use Planning around Seveso Establishments. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2022, 90, 277–282. [Google Scholar]
  15. Sales, J.; Wood, M.; Jelínek, R. Risk Mapping of Industrial Hazards in New Member States; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  16. Walker, G.P. Land Use Planning and Industrial Hazards: A Role for the European Community. Land Use Policy 1991, 8, 227–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Papazoglou, I.A.; Nivolianitou, Z.S.; Bonanos, G.S. Land Use Planning Policies Stemming from the Implementation of the SEVESO-II Directive in the EU. J. Hazard. Mater. 1998, 61, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Walker, G.; Mooney, J.; Pratts, D. The People and the Hazard: The Spatial Context of Major Accident Hazard Management in Britain. Appl. Geogr. 2000, 20, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Laheij, G.M.H.; Post, J.G.; Ale, B.J.M. Standard Methods for Land-Use Planning to Determine the Effects on Societal Risk. J. Hazard. Mater. 2000, 71, 269–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Salvi, O.; Gaston, D. Risk Assessment in Decision Making Related to Land-Use Planning (LUP) as Required by the Seveso II Directive. In Proceedings of the International ESMG Symposium, Nuremberg, Germany, 8–10 October 2002. [Google Scholar]
  21. Caragliano, S.; Manca, D. Emergency Management and Land Use Planning in Industrial Hazardous Areas: Learning from an Italian Experience. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2007, 15, 194–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Basta, C.; Neuvel, J.M.; Zlatanova, S.; Ale, B. Risk-Maps Informing Land-Use Planning Processes: A Survey on the Netherlands and the United Kingdom Recent Developments. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 145, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kontić, D.; Kontić, B. Introduction of Threat Analysis into the Land-Use Planning Process. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 163, 683–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sebos, I.; Progiou, A.; Symeonidis, P.; Ziomas, I. Land-Use Planning in the Vicinity of Major Accident Hazard Installations in Greece. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 179, 901–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Camuncoli, G.; Pilone, E.; Demichela, M. Major Risk Installations and Land Use Planning: Application of the Local Authority Guidelines in Piedmont (Italy). Chem. Eng. Trans. 2012, 26, 423–428. [Google Scholar]
  26. Camuncoli, G.; Demichela, M.; Pilone, E. The Impact of Local Regulations on Land Use Planning for Seveso Sites: SMEs Perspective. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2013, 32, 475–480. [Google Scholar]
  27. Demichela, M.; Pilone, E.; Camuncoli, G. Land Use Planning around Major Risk Installations: From EC Directives to Local Regulations in Italy. Land Use Policy 2014, 38, 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Delvosalle, C.; Robert, B.; Nourry, J.; Yan, G.; Brohez, S.; Delcourt, J. Considering Critical Infrastructures in the Land Use Planning Policy around Seveso Plants. Saf. Sci. 2017, 97, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sebos, I.; Progiou, A.; Ziomas, I. Vulnerability Assessment of Land-Use Types with Respect to Major Accident Hazards. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2017, 16, 1991–1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Török, Z.; Mereuță, P.-M.R.M.A.; Maloș, C.V.; Arghiuș, V.I.; Ozunu, A. Analysis of Territorial Compatibility for Seveso-Type Sites Using Different Risk Assessment Methods and GIS Technique. Land Use Policy 2020, 95, 103837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Markiewicz, M. A Researcher’s View on the Proposal of Legal Regulations Regarding Major Accident Hazard Assessment in the Land-Use Planning Process in Poland. Geomat. Environ. Eng. 2020, 14, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Leordean, R.; Török, Z.; Maloș, C.V.; Ozunu, A.; Senzaconi, F. Comparative Study on Land-Use Planning Methodologies Based on Physical Effects, Consequence and Risk Analysis for Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizer Production Facilities. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2023, 22, 1491–1501. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kakia, S.; Pozoukidou, G.; Vagiona, D. Providing an Integrated Vulnerability Assessment Indicator System (VAIS) to Measure the Spatial Vulnerability of Areas near Seveso Establishments in Thessaloniki (Greece). Sustainability 2023, 15, 2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sarigiannis, D.G.A.; Sarigiannis, K.S. Industrial Contamination and Health in Greece. In Proceedings of the Industrially Contaminated Sites and Health Network (ICSHNet, COST Action IS1408), Rome, Italy, 1–2 October2016. [Google Scholar]
  35. Leontidou, E.; Boustras, G. Occupational Health and Safety in Cyprus: A Historical Overview. Saf. Sci. 2022, 145, 105474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hollá, K.Z. Development of SEVESO directive and its implementation in the Slovak Republic in the area of prevention major industrial accidents. In Proceedings of the 13th WSEAS International Conference on Mathematical and Computational Methods in Science and Engineering; World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS): Stevens Point, WI, USA, 2011; Volume 5, pp. 171–175. [Google Scholar]
  37. Holla, K.; Ristvej, J.; Moricova, V.; Novak, L. Results of survey among SEVESO establishments in the Slovak Republic. J. Chem. Health Saf. 2016, 23, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dvorak, Z.; Leitner, B.; Ballay, M.; Mocova, L.; Fuchs, P. Environmental impact modeling for transportation of hazardous liquids. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Holla, K. Lessons learned from the implementation of the SEVESO III directive in the Slovak Republic. Saf. Secur. Eng. VII 2018, 174, 25. [Google Scholar]
  40. Mäkká, K.; Kampová, K.; Loveček, T.; Petrlová, K. An environmental risk assessment of filling stations using the principles of security management. A case study in the Slovak Republic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Grežo, H.; Močko, M.; Izsoff, M.; Vrbičanová, G.; Petrovič, F.; Straňák, J.; Machar, I. Flood risk assessment for the long-term strategic planning considering the placement of industrial parks in Slovakia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Polorecká, M.; Cidlinová, A. Specialist Education and Methods Used in the Working Risk Assessment in the Small Enterprises and Micro Companies in the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic. In Proceedings of the 15th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Online, 8–9 March 2021; pp. 10447–10454. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kubas, J.; Polorecka, M.; Holla, K.; Soltes, V.; Kelisek, A.; Strachota, S.; Maly, S. Use of toxic substance release modelling as a tool for prevention planning in border areas. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lada, A.; Manos, E. Overview of the Planning System of Greece; ARL—Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association: Hannover, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  45. Pissourios, I.A.; Serghides, C. Overview of the Planning System of Cyprus; ARL—Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association: Hannover, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  46. Finka, M.; Jamecny, L. Country Profile of Slovakia; ARL Country Profiles: Hannover, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  47. Newman, P.; Thornley, A. Urban Planning in Europe: International Competition, National Systems and Planning Projects; Routledge: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  48. Dembski, S.; O’Brien, P. The Quest for Certainty: Introducing Zoning into a Discretionary System in England and the European Experience. Raumforsch. Raumordn. Spat. Res. Plan. 2023, 81, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jaššo, M.; Finka, M. The Role of Leadership in the Current Contexts of Central European Planning Culture. In The Role of Public Sector in Local Economic and Territorial Development. Innovation in Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 131–159. [Google Scholar]
  50. Janin Rivolin, U. Global crisis and the systems of spatial governance and planning: A European comparison. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2017, 25, 994–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Giannakourou, G. The Europeanization of National Planning: Explaining the Causes and the Potentials of Change. Plan. Pract. Res. 2012, 27, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gemenetzi, G. Restructuring Local-Level Spatial Planning in Greece amid the Recession and the Recovery Period: Trends and Challenges. Plan. Pract. Res. 2022, 38, 564–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gemenetzi, G. Exploring the Dual Role of the State in Post-Crisis Project-Led Planning Practice in Greece: Over-Regulator or Enabler? Plan. Pract. Res. 2024, 1–15. Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02697459.2024.2354117 (accessed on 27 May 2025). [CrossRef]
  54. Giannakourou, G. Transforming Spatial Planning Policy in Mediterranean Countries: Europeanization and Domestic Change. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2005, 13, 319–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wassenhoven, L. Compromise Planning: A Theoretical Approach from a Distant Corner of Europe; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  56. Gourgiotis, A.; Tsilimigkas, G. Spatial Planning in Greece: Framework critical review, challenges and perspectives. Plan. Pract. Res. 2024, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Asprogerakas, E.; Zachari, V. The EU Territorial Cohesion Discourse and the Spatial Planning System in Greece. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2020, 28, 583–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Janin Rivolin, U. Planning systems as institutional technologies: A proposed conceptualization and the implications for comparison. Plan. Pract. Res. 2012, 27, 63–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Berisha, E.; Cotella, G.; Janin Rivolin, U.; Solly, A. Spatial governance and planning systems and the public control of spatial development: A European typology. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2020, 29, 181–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ziomas, I. Industrial Hazards and Spatial Planning. Final Report; Research Programme of the School of Chemical Engineering of the National Technical University of Athens: Athens, Greece, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  61. Booth, P. Planning by Consent, the Origins and Nature of British Development Control; Routledge: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  62. Republic of Cyprus. The Town and Country Planning Law; Republic of Cyprus: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2023.
  63. Ioannides, K. A Brief Review of the Evolution of Planning in Cyprus from the End of World War II to the Present. In The Cypriot City Paradigm: Urbanity Issues in Design and Planning; Domes: Athens, Greece, 2018; pp. 48–73. [Google Scholar]
  64. DTPH. Citizen’s Map on the Planning System; Press and Information Office, Republic of Cyprus: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2009.
  65. Council of Ministers. Regulations on the Management of Major Accident Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances of 2001; Regulatory Administrative Act 507/2001; Republic of Cyprus: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2001.
  66. Council of Ministers. Regulations on the Management of Major Accident Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances of 2006; Regulatory Administrative Act 49/2006; Republic of Cyprus: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2006.
  67. Council of Ministers. Regulations on the Management of Major Accident Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances of 2015; Regulatory Administrative Act 347/2015; Republic of Cyprus: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2015.
  68. Council of Ministers. Town and Country Planning Regulations (Accidents Associated to Hazardous Substances) of 2003; Regulatory Administrative Act 759/2003; Republic of Cyprus: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2003.
  69. Council of Ministers. Town and Country Planning Regulations (Accidents Associated to Hazardous Substances) of 2017; Regulatory Administrative Act 76/2017; Republic of Cyprus: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2017.
  70. Council of Ministers. Town and Country Planning Regulations (Accidents Associated to Hazardous Substances) of 2008; Regulatory Administrative Act 399/2008; Republic of Cyprus: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2008.
  71. DTPH. Local Plan of Pafos; Department of Town Planning and Housing, Ministry of the Interior, Republic of Cyprus: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2013.
  72. DTPH. Local Plan of Tseri; Department of Town Planning and Housing, Ministry of the Interior, Republic of Cyprus: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2021.
  73. DLI. Guidelines for the Development of Uses Located Close to Existing Installations or New Installations That Are Regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health at Work (Response to Major Accident Hazards Associated with Hazardous Substances) Regulations; Department of Labour Inspection, Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance, Republic of Cyprus: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2019.
  74. House of Representatives. Answer on 26 November 2019, by the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Constantinos Petrides, to the Question No. 23.06.011.04.087 on 20 September 2019, by Larnaca’s Representative Mrs. Evanthia Savva; House of Representatives, Republic of Cyprus: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2019.
  75. Poten and Partners; ALA Planning Partnership Consultancy. Master Plan of the Vasilikos Area (Update, Volume 1); Ministry of Energy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2013.
  76. Hydrocarbons Service. Master Plan for the Vasilikos Area. 2022. Available online: https://tinyurl.com/yzy6b67e (accessed on 5 November 2023).
  77. Konstanta, K. The Mari Explosion in Cyprus 2011–A Crisis Communication Case Study. Limassol Today. 2022. Available online: https://limassoltoday.com.cy/stiles/alt-text/the-mari-explosion-in-cyprus-2011-a-crisis-communication-case-study/ (accessed on 27 May 2025).
  78. Kyprianidou-Leontidou, T. The tragic memories of July and the lessons from the explosion at Mari. Newsl. Tech. Sci. Chamb. Cyprus 2024, 290, 6. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  79. Council of Ministers. Safety and Health at Work (Control of Major Accident Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances) (Amendment) Regulations of 2024; Regulatory Administrative Act 269/2024; Republic of Cyprus: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2024.
  80. Faludi, A. A Decision-Centred View of Environmental Planning. In Urban and Regional Planning Series; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1987; Volume 38. [Google Scholar]
  81. National Council. Law No. 128/2015 on Major Industrial Accident Prevention; National Council of Slovakia Republic: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  82. Hollá, K.; Polorecká, M.; Kubás, J.; Ballay, M. Validity of the Seveso II and III Directive in the EU. Transp. Res. Procedia 2021, 55, 1506–1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. National Council. Law No. 200/2022 on Urban Planning; National Council of Slovakia Republic: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  84. Ministry of the Environment (ME). Territorial Planning and Permitting Activities around Existing and Proposed Seveso Enterprises; Ministry of the Environment of Slovakia Republic: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  85. Slovak Environment Agency (SEA). Prevention of Serious Industrial Accidents; Slovak Environment Agency (SEA): Bratislava, Slovakia, 2024. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  86. National Council. Law No. 24/2006 on Environmental Impact Assessment; National Council of Slovakia Republic: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  87. Gregor, J. Campaign to Relocate Slovnaft Refinery outside Bratislava (Blog Post). 2008. Available online: https://blog.sme.sk/jangregor/ekonomika/kampan-za-vystahovanie-slovnaftu-mimo-bratislavy (accessed on 27 May 2025).
  88. Ekoforum. Petition of Residents Living in the Vicinity of Slovnaft, Who Are Directly Affected by the Constant Noise and Smell from Slovnaft. 2018. Available online: https://ekoforum.sk/peticia/slovnaft (accessed on 27 May 2025).
  89. Aktuality. The Coalition Is Debating the Relocation of the Slovnaft Refinery from Bratislava. 2021. Available online: https://www.aktuality.sk/clanok/804817/v-koalicii-sa-rozbieha-debata-o-vystahovani-rafinerie-slovnaftu-z-bratislavy/ (accessed on 5 November 2023).
  90. Sybera, A. Slovak Refinery Slovnaft Wants Prolongation of Exemption from Russian Oil Embargo. Newsbase, 30 August 2023. [Google Scholar]
  91. Newsroom. Slovnaft’s Refinery in Bratislava Is Now in Full Operation. CE Energy News, 16 August 2022. [Google Scholar]
  92. Hollá, K. Adapting the Directive SEVESO III in the Slovak Enterprises and Identifying Problem Areas during the Years 2013–2017. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 210, 02020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Gemenetzi, G.; Pissourios, I.; Lainas, I. Spatial Planning within the Framework of Directive Seveso III: A Comparative Study between Greece and Cyprus. Aeihoros 2023, 38, 29–63. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Industrial Area of Thessaloniki (BIPETH) spans two municipalities having different local provisions (source: Google Earth, and own editing).
Figure 1. Industrial Area of Thessaloniki (BIPETH) spans two municipalities having different local provisions (source: Google Earth, and own editing).
Land 14 01194 g001
Figure 2. Risk zones of Seveso establishments extending into the western area of Thessaloniki. The black, red, and yellow lines indicate the boundaries of the very high-, high-, and low-risk zones, respectively (source: Ref. [61], Google Earth, and own editing).
Figure 2. Risk zones of Seveso establishments extending into the western area of Thessaloniki. The black, red, and yellow lines indicate the boundaries of the very high-, high-, and low-risk zones, respectively (source: Ref. [61], Google Earth, and own editing).
Land 14 01194 g002
Figure 3. (a) Excerpt from a Land Use Map [72], illustrating the distance between the Heavy Industry Zone (purple area with white outline) and the nearest Residential Zones (light peach area). (b) Excerpt from a Land Use Map [73], showing a 50-m-wide Protection Zone (see zone indicated with the name “Δα3” in the map) surrounding an Industrial Zone (see zone indicated with the names “Βα5” and “Βε3α” in the maps) to mitigate impacts in the event of a Major Accident Hazard (MAH).
Figure 3. (a) Excerpt from a Land Use Map [72], illustrating the distance between the Heavy Industry Zone (purple area with white outline) and the nearest Residential Zones (light peach area). (b) Excerpt from a Land Use Map [73], showing a 50-m-wide Protection Zone (see zone indicated with the name “Δα3” in the map) surrounding an Industrial Zone (see zone indicated with the names “Βα5” and “Βε3α” in the maps) to mitigate impacts in the event of a Major Accident Hazard (MAH).
Land 14 01194 g003
Figure 4. Aerial images of the Larnaca seafront in 2013 and 2022, illustrating the coordinated relocation of oil refineries and storage facilities. Arrows indicate the locations of these facilities. (a) Aerial image of the Larnaca seafront in 2013; (b) Aerial image of the Larnaca seafront in 2022 (Source: Google Earth, with own editing).
Figure 4. Aerial images of the Larnaca seafront in 2013 and 2022, illustrating the coordinated relocation of oil refineries and storage facilities. Arrows indicate the locations of these facilities. (a) Aerial image of the Larnaca seafront in 2013; (b) Aerial image of the Larnaca seafront in 2022 (Source: Google Earth, with own editing).
Land 14 01194 g004
Figure 5. (a) Protection zones around the Slovnaft refinery in Bratislava, overlaid on land-use zones. (b) Protection zones are shown on an aerial image of the wider area. (Source: Ref. [85] and own editing on Google Maps).
Figure 5. (a) Protection zones around the Slovnaft refinery in Bratislava, overlaid on land-use zones. (b) Protection zones are shown on an aerial image of the wider area. (Source: Ref. [85] and own editing on Google Maps).
Land 14 01194 g005
Table 1. Country-specific studies on the implementation of the Seveso Directives within the land-use planning framework.
Table 1. Country-specific studies on the implementation of the Seveso Directives within the land-use planning framework.
Studies/CountriesItalyFranceNetherlandsGreeceUKGermanySloveniaRomaniaSpainBelgiumAustriaLuxembourgPoland
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]
Table 2. Intersections between the key dimensions of Article 13 and the basic principles proposed by the EWG on LUP.
Table 2. Intersections between the key dimensions of Article 13 and the basic principles proposed by the EWG on LUP.
Land-Use PlanningDevelopment ControlMitigation of Existing MAHsConsultation Procedures
Consistency
Proportionality
Transparency
Source: editing by authors.
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).
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 EchedorosMunicipality of Kallithea
Development of a new Seveso establishmentProhibitedPermitted
Modification of an existing Seveso establishmentPermitted, only if the modification reduces, among other factors, the impact on the surrounding area in the event of a major accidentPermitted within the plot of the establishment, regardless of compatibility with current land uses
Requirement for a comprehensive study of Seveso establishments within the study areaYes, to be completed within the next 5 yearsNo
Table 4. Comparative overview of main findings on the implementation of Article 13 of the Seveso III Directive by case study (source: authors).
Table 4. Comparative overview of main findings on the implementation of Article 13 of the Seveso III Directive by case study (source: authors).
GreeceCyprusSlovakia
Land-use planningFragmented integrationStrong integrationAdequate 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 controlPartially adequateAdequatePartially 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 MAHsInadequate mitigationFull mitigationInadequate 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 proceduresInadequateWell-establishedWell-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
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pissourios, I.; Gemenetzi, G.; Husár, M. 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. Land 2025, 14, 1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14061194

AMA Style

Pissourios I, Gemenetzi G, Husár M. 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. Land. 2025; 14(6):1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14061194

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pissourios, Ioannis, Georgia Gemenetzi, and Milan Husár. 2025. "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" Land 14, no. 6: 1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14061194

APA Style

Pissourios, I., Gemenetzi, G., & Husár, M. (2025). 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. Land, 14(6), 1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14061194

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop