Land use planning/security related issues Group 1 Break-out session 2 Land use planning/security related issues Group 1

Questions for discussion B2-1 LAND USE PLANNING: Main Question: What is your role and experience in reviewing and approving planning decisions in your country? Do you cover new explosives sites, their modification and the construction of public/residential premises and traffic routes within the affected radius? Are the rules and criteria different for explosives and pyrotechnics/fireworks Are you automatically consulted? Is there pressure on you to allow building near an explosives site and how do you judge the risks? If you refuse it, on what grounds can you do so? If not, what do you do?   B2-2 SECURITY Main Question: How do you work with your police and security services in regulating and inspecting explosives and pyrotechnic/fireworks sites? Do you see a breach of security; either to steal explosives or to blow up the premises as a significant risk? Do you work together or which one takes the lead and has overall authority? What is the response to an incident; explosion or security breach and who investigates it; police; security services (army/government security services) or you, the competent authority? How do you manage the safety and security of site and local personnel during an incident?

B2-1 Land Use Planning Main Question: What is your role and experience in reviewing and approving planning decisions in your country? Is there pressure on you to allow building near an explosives site and how do you judge the risks? If you refuse it, on what grounds can you do so? If not, what do you do? All: There is mostlz no really pressure, the authorithies do the decission on the laws and distances fixed in rules Belgium: federal and lokal, both do a permisson Estonia: federal Differences between pyrotechnical and explosives Cyprus: central authorithy do the permission Germany: mixed system, lokal and federal, with fixed rules Netherland: mixed system, first municipal then central inspection unit Norway: land-use first is located at the local authority, dsb is a cunsultant Pressure: only for plants for explosives, but no real conflicts Sweden: permission get centralized, but first lokal planing You can take notes in this section: Germany: no different between ex + pyro Cyprus: land use planing criteria, communal auttorities, the seveso autoritie is the main authority other come to them. Check Worst-Case Szenarios, and then the authority give permisson, no such sites pyrotechnical sites, for other seveso there is pressure (e.g. Build a shopping mall) Netherland: Quit difficult system ex+pyro the same, normally land-use planing municipal, for ex+pyro central inspection look also, special distances for vulnerable buildings (like schools, hostpitals etc.) Belgium: one federal authority for labor and safty, and three lokal authorithty, both do a permission, reginol has the main power, safty distances written down Estonia: the seveso authority give permission, fix distances in a table in legeslation for outside distances, for explosive sites: they are all far from anything, pyrotechnics are even small companys and have small distances Sweden: Permission get centralized, lokal authoritiees do lokal planing but the central can go over it and plan new on there own. Norway: Detail laws for all, first lokal planing, dsb is consultant, ex storage far away, often in land which has no land-planing, regulations reallz detailed, which building (house, school, kindergarten, road, etc.). Explosives plants are more difficult, a little pressure

B2-2 Security Main Question: How do you work with your police and security services in regulating and inspecting explosives and pyrotechnic/fireworks sites? Common: Work together: Not in normal inspection, but if there is an incident the police is involved In planing often not, in estonia they have a comitee in which all parties involved We think there is a risk in stealing explosives, especially on transportation Belgium: police for explosives, do investigations Estonia: a comittee is build, with all parties beteiligt, before given permisson, not in inspection Cyprus: a good cooperation bwtwen permisson and , no joing ispection together in regulating Germany: no really contact with police, emergency over firebrigade Netherland: local police forces, now national police , but a lot of contact to police, firebrigade, etc. Norway: annual report of security services, no direct cooperation, exept for incidents, Stealing is a significant risk, strong regulations so the system is quit dafe Sweden: firebrigade, no cooperation to police, stealing risk on transport routes