The case of the investment “Panorama in Trout” in Istog is one of the most complex in terms of construction in protected areas of cultural heritage. In June, the investors were provided with a permit by the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage. After four days, the permit was revoked. A process of requests from the party has begun that for many exceeds the competences of the cultural heritage institutions. And the IKMM has remained silent in the face of questions about this case
A decision approving the project was followed by another one revoking it. Several additional requests were made. After them, other requests were made. The works were stopped and the case, since June, has turned into a "tic-mic" between the institutions and also in relation to the investor. The requests made by the Kosovo Institute for the Protection of Monuments show to many that the institution has exceeded its competences. And the Inspectorate of Cultural Heritage has taken measures by stopping the works. The case for the investment "Panorama in Trout" in Istog is one of the most complex in terms of construction in protected areas of cultural heritage.
The investors of the business and residential complex, since they claim to build near the “Trofta” hotel complex, an asset under protection as a cultural heritage value of the last century, in addition to municipal permits, have also requested planning conditions in a protected area or within the perimeter of the asset. They have received them and changed the conceptual project based on the conditions received. They have revised the project by “playing” with the layout in compliance with the instructions received from the Regional Center for Cultural Heritage in Peja. Then, in June, they turned to the Kosovo Institute for the Protection of Monuments. On June 15, they made a decision through which the conceptual project was approved. Building blocks with a maximum height of B+S+P+5K have been approved. The IKMM Commission, in its reasoning, recommended the Municipality of Istog to "verify and harmonize the distances between buildings in accordance with the norms and technical conditions determined by the Municipal Zoning Map, as well as to verify the treatment and positioning of openings (windows) on the facades, in order for the project to meet all conditions...".
But four days later, on June 19, the Institute revoked the decision. In the justification, it requested that a possession certificate no older than 6 months be brought, as well as a copy of the plan. The recommendation to the Municipality is also repeated there. After that, the IKMM continued with other requests. It requested information on whether the party had gone through the environmental impact assessment process, although the plot is in an urban area according to the Zonal Map of the Municipality. The party then requested clarifications from the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning.
In August, the party received a response from this Ministry, specifically from Rizah Muçolli, head of the Division for Environmental Permits and Licenses. According to the response, the party has nothing to do with this Ministry.
"Based on the legislation in force, your Residential-Business Complex facility is subject to the issuance of a Municipal Environmental Permit, in accordance with the MESP Administrative Instruction No. 01/2017 on the Issuance of a Municipal Environmental Permit. According to the Annex - List of activities subject to the Municipal Environmental Permit, point 19, it is provided that: 'The construction of collective housing and service facilities (hotel, trade, commercial, business, etc.) with a base area of over 450 m² or with a total area of the facility over 1,500 m², is subject to the issuance of a Municipal Environmental Permit'", the response reads.
It clarifies that for issues of protected cultural heritage areas, the address is the cultural heritage institutions.
"The competence of the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning is limited to issuing consents and relevant acts related to protected nature areas, in accordance with the relevant legislation", the response states. But for the IKMM, at least so far, this letter has not been used. Subsequently, the Directorate for Urban Planning and Environment in Istog addressed the IKMM. The Directorate made it clear to the IKMM that, based on the interpretation of the Ministry of Environment, the project in question is subject to the procedure for obtaining a Municipal Environmental Permit, in accordance with the Administrative Instruction for Granting a Municipal Environmental Permit.
“The Directorate for Urban Planning and Environment, in exercising its powers, will act in accordance with the requirements and procedures set out in law and by-laws,” reads the letter sent by the Directorate’s architect, Aurela Sadikaj. The IKMM has been asked to indicate what legal basis it has for requesting the report and decision on the environmental impact assessment. The IKMM has also been asked to stay within the legal framework of cultural heritage.
These clarifications were not enough for the Kosovo Institute for the Protection of Monuments to review the case yet. The investing party has provided KOHË with access to all documentation. But the IKMM has not provided KOHË with any clarifications for 11 days. The institution has not responded to questions about why the party's conceptual project was approved on June 15 of this year and four days later it was revoked with a request for a possession list and a copy of the plan no older than six months. Likewise, not to questions about why, when the project was approved, the possession list and the copy of the plan were taken for granted, being older than six months, and who takes responsibility for this.
"Why, after the decision to revoke, beyond the reasoning of this decision, were additional documents requested from the party? Why were they not all included in the decision to revoke? On what legal basis is the party also required to obtain consent from the Ministry of Environment? Is there any other case when such documents are requested from a party? Why is the party charged with additional documents after the conditions have been issued and it has complied with them? Where does this case currently stand and what is its status?", are the questions raised to which the IKMM has not responded.
Meanwhile, the Regional Center for Cultural Heritage in Peja has said that the case is currently being processed by the Institute for Cultural Heritage, as the competent central institution.
"For this reason, for any clarification or additional information regarding the case in question, please contact the IKMM. As a central competent institution, which has a mandate to review applications for construction within the protective areas of cultural heritage assets," the response reads.
KOHA has consulted three cultural heritage officials in relation to this case. According to them, the IKMM is only responsible for respecting cultural heritage legislation and processes such as environmental impact assessment are matters of the Ministry of Environment. Last week, the Cultural Heritage Inspectorate banned the investor from carrying out the works. In this case, the investors have prepared a report for the Inspectorate, requesting clarification from the Inspectorate as to whether the IKMM can also request documents that are legally the responsibility of other institutions.