Petar Bošković, a representative from the Serbia Center (SRCE), was denied entry to a public session concerning the spatial plan for the ‘Belgrade Waterfront’ project, raising significant concerns about transparency and public oversight in the urban planning process. The incident took place during a meeting of the Commission tasked with amending the spatial plan for this high-profile development project. According to a statement from SRCE, Bošković and Dejan Jovanović, the Vice President of SRCE’s Executive Board, were informed at the entrance that they were not on the list for in-person attendance but were instead assigned to follow the session online. However, the email containing the link for online participation was reportedly sent to them only after the session had already commenced.
Bošković criticized the lack of transparency, emphasizing that public oversight is essential for ensuring that planning solutions align with established conditions. He remarked, “Public insight is not about taking someone’s word for it; it’s about public control. If the public cannot access the conditions under which the plan was developed, it cannot verify if the planning solutions comply with them.” He further highlighted the importance of accountability in the planning process, noting that there are names, plans, subjects, parcels, signatures, and responsibilities involved, which should be documented and accessible.
The public insight period for the spatial plan was conducted from August 14 to 28. However, Bošković pointed out that the law requires such deadlines to be calculated in working days, not calendar days, suggesting that the process may have been expedited improperly. He also expressed concerns about the expanding powers of the national Agency for Spatial Planning, which conducted the public insight. According to Bošković, recent amendments to the Planning and Construction Law have broadened the agency’s capabilities, potentially increasing favoritism towards investors. Specifically, he mentioned changes allowing for the conversion of forest land damaged by fire into other uses if deemed in the public interest or for public infrastructure, and the removal of the pre-implementation phase in project cycles for capital projects.
These developments have sparked apprehensions about the transparency of the planning process. Bošković noted that it is impossible to determine the status of items with a “GOV” designation through the system for checking items, raising questions about whether these items relate to state or local government-owned properties of interest to investors.
The ‘Belgrade Waterfront’ project has been a contentious issue in Serbian politics, with various stakeholders expressing concerns over its implications for urban development. The denial of access to the public session adds another layer of controversy, highlighting ongoing issues of transparency and public involvement in urban planning in Serbia. The situation underscores the need for clear and open processes to ensure that urban development projects align with public interest and legal standards.
