First Reading of the Draft Act on Amending the Atmospheric Air Protection Act (393 SE)
Session: 15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
Date: 2024-03-20 16:41
Participating Politicians:
Total Speeches: 56
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 1h 3m
AI Summaries: 56/56 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The Riigikogu debated the first reading of Draft Act 393, initiated by the Environmental Committee, concerning the amendment of the Atmospheric Air Protection Act. The objective of the draft act is to achieve legal clarity in the application of noise target values, in order to solve practical problems that hinder the construction of new buildings in densely populated areas where the level of traffic noise is already high. Presenter Pärtel-Peeter Pere (Member of the Environmental Committee) explained that the current law is open to multiple interpretations, and overly strict noise target values (which are lower than limit values) prevent the construction of apartment buildings in noisy downtown areas, which in turn drives up real estate prices.
The draft act proposes amendments to § 56, which grant the procedural authority (the local government) the right not to apply the noise target value in densely populated areas if the target value is already exceeded, the planned building itself does not increase noise (e.g., an apartment building, not a factory), and residents have the opportunity to spend time in a quieter environment on nearby land. During the discussion, questions arose regarding the failure to define the term "nearby land area" (referencing the World Health Organization's recommendation of 300 meters) and the complexity of implementing the proposed exceptions. Criticism was also leveled at the promotion of dense settlement and the "15-minute city" concept associated with the draft act's explanatory memorandum. The EKRE faction proposed rejecting the draft act, but this motion did not find support.
Decisions Made 3
The EKRE faction's proposal to reject Bill 393 during its first reading was not supported (11 votes for, 52 against).
The first reading of Draft 393 was concluded.
The deadline for submitting amendment proposals was set for April 4th at 17:15.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The next item on the agenda is the first reading of Draft Bill 393 on amending the Atmospheric Air Protection Act, and we now invite Pärtel-Peeter Pere, a member of the Environment Committee, to serve as the rapporteur.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
Pärtel-Peeter Pere introduced a draft bill aimed at clarifying the application of the noise limit value in the Ambient Air Protection Act and adding exceptions and conditions for the construction of new dwellings in densely populated areas. These include cases where the noise level is already exceeded or where residents have the possibility to stay in noise-free areas within the residential district. However, the exceptions do not apply if the planned building is intended for activities requiring the use of outdoor air.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Deputy Chairman thanked [the previous speaker] and said that there were questions, inviting Priit Sibul to take the floor.
Priit Sibul
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Priit Sibul asks about subsection 22, specifically what it means in practice that when planning a residence, the noise target value may be disregarded if residents have the opportunity to stay and spend leisure time on the property of the residence or on a nearby land area where the noise target value has not been exceeded, and what "nearby land area" means, and whether this target value is also considered for the building itself, including balconies and terraces.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
Pärtel-Peeter Pere notes that the concept of proximity is extremely subjective and lacks a precise definition, and although the World Health Organization suggests a distance of about 300 meters from one's residence in a planning context, this is not a definitive standard, and he asks for the second question to be repeated.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
There is an opportunity to ask a second question, and Evelin Poolamets is being asked to do so.
Evelin Poolamets
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Following the adoption of the draft act, the noise target value must be applied to all types of planning and established in every new detailed plan. However, a question is raised regarding how the draft act establishes legal certainty and prevents misunderstandings between developers and the processing authorities in situations where the limit value applies in the area covered by an existing detailed plan, while the target value applies in the new area.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
Pärtel-Peeter Pere said that the current provision of the Planning Act is open to multiple interpretations and causes differing practices between developers and local governments, but future amendments will bring clarity regarding when to apply one noise value versus another, and the autonomy of local governments will be preserved, since these issues will henceforth be regulated by the Planning Act.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi invited Arvo Aller to speak.
Arvo Aller
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Arvo Aller highlighted that the noise target level in the densely populated area has already been surpassed, yet it is simultaneously claimed that the proposed building and its operation will not cause any further exceedance—a situation he finds contradictory.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
Pärtel-Peeter Pere explains that the noise level must remain within prescribed limits (e.g., 55 decibels) and must not accumulate between buildings. Furthermore, based on an example, he concludes that changing the law would make it possible to construct a standard apartment building—one that does not generate noise itself—in a densely populated area.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi asked Andres Metsoja to come.
Andres Metsoja
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Rapporteur Andres Metsoja pointed out that while the intent of the draft legislation is clear, the specific provision is confusing because the issue of the target value in the context of noise, the procedure for granting exceptions, and the role of the Health Board during the coordination phase all require explicit clarification.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
The main takeaway was that the wording of the word "exception" and the precise, clear formulation regarding the fulfillment of the three conditions still needs to be refined within the Environment Committee. This is because officials are wary of exceptions, and the current draft is imperfect, so input is being sought for necessary improvements.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi invited Priit Sibul to the stage.
Priit Sibul
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Priit Sibul requested clarification on the term "adjacent land area" and asked whether the target value is also considered for building components, such as balconies and terraces, which may affect neighbors.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
Pärtel-Peeter Pere notes that noise is measured in various ways. He mentions the WHO recommendation regarding a distance of approximately 300 meters (a stone’s throw away) and states that he will introduce clarifying amendments to the law. This is because, although local municipalities compile noise maps in accordance with the European directive, there is currently no oversight or sanctions, and more proactive steps are required to effectively reduce noise levels.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Arvo Aller was called to the stage at the beginning of the speech.
Arvo Aller
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Arvo Aller raises a question regarding subsection 23, specifically why the list at the end was included as examples (childcare, preschool institution, general education school, or welfare institution), why children’s camps, for instance, are not included, and he considers this list unnecessary.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
I agree with Mr. Aller and believe that Section 23 is unnecessary here, as it restricts exceptions that do not apply when the area is planned for a kindergarten, school, or recreational or sports facility. I want to work on this section and improve the law together to ensure opportunities for spending time outdoors.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Evelin Poolamets is invited to the stage at the start of the address.
Evelin Poolamets
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The rapporteur raises the question that the authority specified in subsection 21 of Section 56 may be permitted to waive the application of the noise target value in a densely populated area, and it is not clear from the draft legislation and the Ambient Air Protection Act who is competent, within the context of this procedure, to assess and decide whether compliance with the noise target value is unnecessary in a specific area.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
Pärtel-Peeter Pere stated that the procedural authority is the local municipality, which handles comprehensive and detailed spatial planning, and the responsibility should primarily rest there, although the Health Board may also be involved in some cases.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Toomas Kivimägi invites Urve Tiidus to the stage.
Urve Tiidus
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Urve Tiidus highlighted the idea of 15-minute cities and asked how many of them could actually emerge in Estonia by 2040.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
Pärtel-Peeter Pere explains the context of the Rohetiiger (Green Tiger) construction roadmap 2040, confirming that the 15-minute city is a realistic goal for Estonia, and that a public transport stop—from which one can continue traveling using various means of transport—will also be located just a quarter of an hour away.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi invites Rain Epler to speak.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler stated that 15-minute cities are an older, international phenomenon (even in China). He then asked what, upon achieving this goal, would become more expensive and complicated for residents and businesses, and what would become cheaper and simpler.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
The 15-minute city does not mean gigantic tower blocks, but rather a normal population density achieved with 5–6-story buildings. This creates more apartments and commercial premises, reduces real estate prices, and increases employment. Furthermore, noise levels must be lowered based on municipal noise maps.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Speaker Toomas Kivimägi invites Anti Poolamets to take the floor.
Anti Poolamets
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anti Poolamets accuses his opponent of adhering to communist ideology, claiming that the plan is to restrict private property, impose taxes on buyers of higher-end cars, and ultimately return us to Soviet-era panel housing and Soviet urban planning.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
Pärtel-Peeter Pere stressed that he is strongly opposed to communism and Nazism, and emphasized voluntary, neighborhood-based renovation, which improves the quality of life and the value of real estate. The funding for this is provided by the state and German taxpayers, without any mandatory renovation requirements.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
This is a brief request addressed to Aivar Kokka.
Aivar Kokk
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Aivar Kokk thanks you for the response and asks for clarification regarding the 300-meter reference concerning the 'stone's throw' definition—specifically, what exactly that means, and what conditions, limitations, and obligations are associated with it.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
This draft legislation employs the term “proximity” in its noise regulations, yet this concept remains undefined within the law. While the WHO suggested a distance of approximately 300 meters, the ongoing process must clarify whether “proximity” refers to 300 or 500 meters, and crucially, how this definition impacts the application of noise target values, particularly when outdoor presence is possible in the immediate area.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
During the address, Rain Epler was merely presented with a request.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler points out that when discussing the 15-minute city concept, clarification is needed on whether the distance is measured by foot or by car, and whether the focus is on surface area or volume. He then references a distance of about 300 meters and asks what specific distances fall within the parameters of the 15-minute city.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
The 15-minute city means that every person can access necessary amenities within 15 minutes by walking or cycling, and if we plan the country smartly and build cities densely, we reduce land and car usage, allowing us to leave more forests, nature, and fields in the countryside, where regional centers are accessible within one hour via public transport.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Andres Metsoja concludes the round of questions.
Andres Metsoja
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
In his presentation, Andres Metsoja discusses the issue of the morning crowing of the rooster that lives at the Pärnu Nature House. He raises questions about whether a proposed draft bill could resolve the situation, whether natural sounds can truly become noise pollution in an urban setting, and whether the local municipality could temporarily relocate the rooster only to bring it back for the children in the evening.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
The speaker explains the meaning of Section 55 of the Atmospheric Air Protection Act, according to which noise propagating in the ambient air is unwanted or harmful sound caused by human activity and spreading in the ambient air, generated by stationary or mobile sources. Furthermore, he notes that domestic noise, noise from entertainment events, workplace noise, and noise generated by national defense activities are not covered by this section. He then provides a humorous example involving a rooster and emphasizes that we must simply cope with other animals on the planet.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Toomas Kivimägi asks Aivar Kokk to come and speak.
Aivar Kokk
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Aivar Kokk points out that people themselves bought houses next to the highway or a field, lived there for a couple of years, and are now complaining about the noise and demanding restrictions. He questions who the draft bill actually protects—those who drive on the highway, or those who settled there and later started demanding specific conditions.
Pärtel-Peeter Pere
AI Summary
Pärtel-Peeter Pere stated that the draft legislation deals with urban and densely populated areas and doesn't solve this specific kind of problem. And while it's unfortunate when someone buys a plot right next to a highway, builds a house there, and then later regrets the decision, it's not something we can regulate here.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi expressed his thanks, informed the assembly that there were no questions, opened the discussions, and Tiit Maran, on behalf of the Social Democratic Party faction, requested additional time.
Tiit Maran
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Tiit Maran emphasized that the Atmospheric Air Protection Act must include a clear definition of noise and take into account the assessment of noise-related health risks, measurement, and the setting of limit and target values, involving local governments in order to better manage noise in densely populated cities such as Tallinn and Tartu.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi expresses his thanks and, on behalf of the EKRE faction, gives the floor to Evelin Poolamets.
Evelin Poolamets
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The EKRE faction proposes rejecting the first reading of the bill, as it creates legal uncertainty, fails to specify the minimum distance from a residence or the location of a quiet recreational area, and makes the implementation of development activities and the green transition unreasonably complex.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi thanked [the previous speaker] and, on behalf of the Isamaa faction, invited Aivar Kokk to speak.
Aivar Kokk
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Member of the Riigikogu Aivar Kokk said that although reducing noise levels is important, he does not support the concept of 15-minute cities or high-rise buildings, and emphasizes uniform coverage across Estonia, better infrastructure, and clear funding.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
He asks for three more minutes.
Aivar Kokk
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Discussing rail transport, Aivar Kokk notes that current speeds reflect the development of the previous century, and Rail Baltic trains should be traveling up to 300 km/h to reach major hubs like Tallinn–Tartu and Pärnu within an hour.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The address calls for quicker action.
Aivar Kokk
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Aivar Kokk emphasized that the Ülemiste terminal is important, but funding and plans must be realistic. He criticized the use of EU money without substance and the breaking of the budget, and stressed the necessity of ensuring that a gradual and sensible green transition takes into account the economic recession and the financial burden placed on people, given that cars and mobility will not disappear overnight.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi announced that the Board intends to conclude the first reading of Draft Bill 393, but the EKRE faction has put forward a motion to reject it and called upon colleagues to vote.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The proposal failed to gain support: 11 Riigikogu members voted in favor, 52 against, and there were 0 abstentions; the first reading of Bill 393 is concluded, and the deadline for submitting amendments is 5:15 PM on April 4th of this year. We have now concluded the deliberation of the second item on the agenda.