BACKGROUND

Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy has a soil permit granted by the Technical Committee of Kihniö Municipality on 20.8.2018, Section 46, for the excavation of 50,000 m of rock material.³ for the total extraction amount on the property Louhimo RN:o 250-407-3-164 (formerly 250-407-3-163 a). The rock crushing has been handled with a noise notification. The permit has been valid until 20.9.2020. A deposit of 5,500 euros has been required as security for the landscaping work, which must be valid for more than a year after the extraction period. The deposit is in the municipality's account. Neglect of aftercare work has been noted in the soil extraction area.

Inspection 20.5.2020

The operator was informed during the inspection and in the memorandum that if the soil extraction and landscaping cannot be completed by 30 September 2020, an extension of time must be applied for by June at the latest, so that the decision becomes legally binding before the permit expires. If the extraction and landscaping are completed before the end of September, a final inspection will be held in the area and the security deposit will be returned when the landscaping has been completed satisfactorily.

Inspection 30.9.2020

Based on the inspection, nothing had happened in the soil extraction area since the May inspection, and no extension permit application has been submitted. The area has not been landscaped in accordance with the permit conditions by leveling the area for forestry use.

Consultation 30.9.2020

Before any obligations and/or the use of the security for landscaping were imposed, Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy was given the opportunity to submit its response regarding the negligence. Any response had to be submitted by 23 October 2020, under the threat that the environmental protection authority could then decide on the obligations without response. Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy did not submit a response in the matter.

Call 20.1.2021

The Kihniö Technical Board decided that Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy has not complied with the conditions set out in the soil permit for landscaping the area. The board urged Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy to landscape the intake area within one month of receiving the notice so that the area becomes level or the slopes are eased to a minimum slope of 1:3. If the area is leveled or there are no slopes considered dangerous in the area, the steel mesh fence can be omitted. At the same time, the board announced that if the notice is not complied with, the board may take enforcement action to rectify the negligence and report the negligence to the prosecution authority.

Inspection 8.11.2023

Based on the inspection, no significant changes had occurred in the soil extraction area in three years.

Evidential access to information 11.1.2024

Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy has demonstrably received the board's decision on 11 January 2024, so the deadline for completing the landscaping was 12 February 2024. Taking into account the time of year, the deadline can be considered to be by 30 April 2024. The company filed a claim for rectification, in which it stated that the landscaping work had been completed.

Inspection 22.5.2024

The environmental inspector and technical director conducted an inspection of the quarry area on May 22, 2024. The inspection was carried out to monitor compliance with the obligations of the advisory issued by the board.

Based on the inspections, no landscaping work has been carried out. The soil area has an excavator, storage piles and a depression in which water has accumulated. There is smoother ground along Nerkoontie before the depression. There is still activity in the area based on the photos taken during the inspections in November 2023 and May 2024, although the soil permit is no longer valid. Soil and storage piles have been milled and moved between inspections, and no vegetation has formed in the area.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOIL MATERIAL PERMIT AND CONTROL HISTORY

Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy has acted in violation of the permit provisions of the soil material permit and, despite the request, the landscaping has been inadequately implemented. The supervision is described in this decision.

Along with the agenda:

• Soil permit decision, technical committee 20.8.2018 § 46
• photos of the area from 2020, 2023 and 2024
• location map
• orthophoto of the area

Prepared by: Environmental Inspector Elsi Hietaranta, tel. 044 7865 650

BACKGROUND

On 30.6.2010 June 35, the Kihniö Technical Board granted Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy an extension of the soil permit for the extraction of 600 m of rock material under Section 37.³ for the total extraction amount on the property Vähämäki RN:o 250-407-3-132. The soil permit has been valid until July 2015. A deposit of 4,000 euros has been required as security for the landscaping work, which must be valid for 6 months beyond the extraction period. Kihniön Osuuspankki has delivered the security to the municipality of Kihniön. The security has not been realized.

The permit conditions require that landscaping and aftercare work be carried out without delay (permit condition 11) and that upon completion of the extraction operation or expiry of the permit, the permit holder must request a final inspection from the supervisory authority in accordance with Section 8 of the Soil Decree (permit condition 15). In addition, the permit decision requires that a metal mesh fence be built around the area. It has been determined that landscaping has not been carried out in the soil extraction area and that no protective fence has been built.

2016-2018

Based on the contacts received by the municipality, environmental protection contacted the permit holder in the winter of 2016, when the deadline for completing the fence was autumn 2017. The permit holder announced that the erection of the fence has been ordered, and it will be completed by the end of February 2018.

The Technical Board decided on 31 January 2018 that it would initiate administrative coercive measures under the Penalty Fines Act if a sufficiently high metal protective fence had not been completed around the intake area by 29 February 2018. The Board overturned its decision following the operator's request for rectification on the basis of legality due to the lack of a written procedure. At the same time, the Board urged that the area be protected and landscaped.

Inspection 3.4.2018

On April 3, 2018, the environmental inspector inspected the extraction area and noted that a mesh fence had not been built to protect the steep quarry walls and urged the permit holder to build a fence.

Inspection 11.11.2020

The environmental inspector inspected the area on November 11, 2020 and found that landscaping has only been done acceptably in the southeast corner of the intake area. In addition, the northeast and north parts have been taken to the level of the surrounding ground, so they do not require protection or additional landscaping. Instead, the southern and western edges along the road leading to the area have been left steep and dangerous without the steel mesh fence required in the permit. Small amounts of topsoil have been driven onto the southern and southwest slopes, but the slopes are too steep.

Decision 20.1.2021 § 7

The Technical Committee found that Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy has not fulfilled the conditions given to it in the soil permit for the construction of a steel mesh fence or the safe landscaping of the area, despite the requests given by the official and the Committee.

Due to the negligence found, the board announced that it will order the permit holder to carry out the required measures, under threat that the board will use the security deposit placed with the municipality to carry out the work, if the permit holder does not comply with the order. The measures to be carried out are either the construction of a steel mesh fence on the southern and western borders or, alternatively, the smoothing of steep slopes to a slope of at least 1:3 on quarries, surface land and, if necessary, other clean land. Any filling work will require applying for a new soil permit for landscaping work. The board also announces that the negligence can also be reported to the prosecution authority.

Before issuing an order, the board reserves the opportunity for Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy to submit a response. The response must be submitted within two weeks of receiving the letter, under threat that the matter may then be processed without a response.

Inspection 8.11.2023

Based on the inspection carried out by the environmental inspector on November 8, 2023, no significant changes had occurred in the soil extraction area in three years.

Evidential access to information 11.1.2024

Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy has demonstrably received the board's decision on January 11, 2024, so the deadline for submitting a response was January 26, 2024. Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy did not submit a response in the matter.

Inspection 22.5.2024

The environmental inspector and technical director conducted an inspection of the quarry area on May 22, 2024. The inspection was carried out to monitor compliance with the obligations of the advisory issued by the board.

A Ramirent construction site fence, approximately 1,2 m high, standing on concrete bases, had been brought to the area. The metal mesh fence should be permanent and as maintenance-free as possible, as according to the technical committee's permit decision, the responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of the mesh fence lies with the permit applicant. The current fence solution does not appear to be a permanent but rather a temporary solution. The fence may also be too low for winter. In addition, the fence had not been installed for a sufficiently long distance to protect the cliffs on the southern and western edges of the area.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOIL MATERIAL PERMIT AND CONTROL HISTORY

Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy has acted in violation of the permit conditions of the soil material permit and, despite reminders, has failed to carry out the landscaping/fence construction. The reminder cannot be considered to have been complied with to a sufficient extent. The supervision is described in this decision, and it shows the frequency and timing of the reminders given in the matter, as well as the response to them.

Along with the agenda:

• Extension of soil permit decision, technical committee 30.6.2010 § 37
• photos of the area from 2023 and 2024
• orthophoto of the area

Prepared by: Environmental Inspector Elsi Hietaranta, tel. 044 7865 650

BACKGROUND

A request for rectification has been submitted to the Technical Board of Kihniö Municipality on 25 January 2024. Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy demands that the Technical Board of Kihniö Municipality revoke its decision of 20 January 2021, Section 8, and correct the incorrect information it provided.

Request for rectification 25.1.2024

The Technical Committee's decision of 20 January 2021, Section 8, deals with a supervision matter based on the neglect of the permit provisions of the Soil Materials Act. Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy presents the following as justification for the request for rectification:

• The matter is outdated.
• The matter has been handled in accordance with regulations.
• The time limit for the original written notification of the matter has expired.
• No written notification has been given to Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy regarding the matter.
• Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy has submitted the required security deposit to the Kihniö municipality office. The Kihniö municipality has not returned the security deposit to Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy.

It is also announced that the aggrieved party will file a criminal complaint under the heading of defamation against the members of the technical committee who participated in the matter and other persons who participated in the decision of the matter, if the false information given to the media is not corrected. Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy will also file a criminal complaint under the heading of fraud against the municipality of Kihniö and the members of the technical committee and other persons who participated in the decision of the matter, if the distorted information about the failure to submit the security is not corrected and the security is not returned immediately to Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy.

PROCEEDINGS

Reply to arguments 1 and 2

The landscaping work must be completed in accordance with the permit provisions, even if the soil permit is no longer valid. Therefore, the matter has not expired. The environmental inspector has inspected the area on 8 November 2023. In addition, the environmental inspector and the technical director have visited the area on 22 May 2024. Based on the inspections, it can be stated that the intake area has not been maintained and landscaped in the manner required by the permit conditions.

Reply to justification 3

There has undoubtedly been a delay in the notification, as the decision was made on 20 January 2021 and the party concerned has only demonstrably received it on 11 January 2024. The reason for the delay is not clear. The current environmental inspector started his duties in September 2023 and delivered the decision to the party concerned as soon as possible. The notification was first made by acknowledgement of receipt, but the party concerned did not collect the acknowledgement of receipt letter from the post office. After this, the decision was delivered to the party concerned as a summons. The decision urges the party to landscape the intake area within one month of receiving the invitation. The deadline was therefore still possible to comply with, and it had not expired because the landscaping work had not been done. When the notification was received on 11 January 2024, the deadline for completing the landscaping was 12 February 2024. Taking into account the time of year, the deadline for completing the landscaping can be considered to be 30 April 2024 at the latest.

Reply to justification 4

Justification 4 of the claim for rectification contradicts justification 3. If written notification had not been given to Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy in the matter, how could the date of notification have expired? The party concerned has evidently received the decision on 11 January 2024, when written notification also took place.

Reply to justification 5

Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy claims to have submitted the required security to the Kihniö municipal office, and the municipality has not returned the security to Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy. In January 2021, it was believed that no security had been provided because no pledge document was found for the security. It was only after the party concerned contacted the municipality in January 2024 that it became clear that the security had been provided in cash. The accounting records show an amount corresponding to the security in the municipality's account on 20 August 2018. For a bank deposit, there should be a signed notification of the pledge of the deposit and a certificate of non-offset from the bank before the security is accepted. Such certificates are missing. Over the years, there have been personnel changes in the municipality. The cash provided as security was identified based on the memories of a long-term employee.

Generally, the security for a soil permit is a self-debted guarantee issued by a specific bank or insurance institution, which is valid until all measures required by the permit or its provisions have been approved in the final inspection. After the soil extraction is complete the licensee requests a final inspection, in which the obligations and after-care work specified in the permit provisions pursuant to Section 11 of the Soil Materials Act are found to have been satisfactorily implemented. In return for this, the security deposit is released by decision of the supervisory authority. Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy has submitted the security deposit required in the soil materials permit, but the security deposit has not been returned because a final inspection has not been requested and the landscaping work has not been satisfactorily carried out.

Finally, it is stated that the interested party and Alvarin Sora ja Murske Oy have the right to file a criminal report if they/the company wish to do so.

BACKGROUND

Maanrakennus Kalevi Viitaharju Oy has a joint permit granted by the Technical Committee of Kihniö Municipality on 17.10.2018, Section 50, for the excavation and crushing of 200,000 m of rock material.³ for the total abstraction amount on the property Männikkö RN:o 250-407-1-79. The lowest permitted abstraction level is +160,00 (N) as per the application.₆₀).

The environmental permit includes, among other things, the following provisions regarding the operation:

regulations:

• Permit condition 1: Before the commencement of soil extraction, the permitted extraction levels and the boundaries of the excavation area must be marked in an appropriate manner and tied to the national elevation system. A protective mesh fence must be installed around the quarry. Before the commencement of extraction activities, the permit holder must also present a waste management plan for the extracted waste.
• Permit condition 2: A person responsible for the plant's operations must be appointed and the commencement of excavation and crushing must be notified to the municipal environmental protection authority. Blasting work must comply with Act 390/2005 on the Safety of Chemicals and Explosives.
• Permit condition 3: Before commencing extraction operations, the permit holder must request the supervisory authority to conduct an initial inspection of the area, where the permit conditions are reviewed.
• Permit condition 6: The bottom of the intake area must be sloped so that surface water does not accumulate there. The water must be led through a clarification basin into the ditch. The quality of the water led into the ditch must be monitored during the overflow periods in spring and autumn. The following concentrations must be presented to the permit authority, if necessary: ​​turbidity, solids, total nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, pH, chloride, electrical conductivity, COD(Mn), iron, sulphate and arsenic, and oil hydrocarbons.
• Permit condition 7: Soil extraction must stop no later than 2 meters above the highest observed groundwater level. The elevation level of the area and the lowest extraction level must be marked on the terrain in a place where it will remain permanently throughout the extraction operation. The marking of the extraction level must be changed if observations of the groundwater level require it.
• Permit condition 13: The storage area for the loader and other equipment must be located elsewhere than in the extraction area. The storage area must be sealed in an appropriate manner and care must be taken to ensure that no oily or other unnatural water enters the environment.
• Permit condition 19: Extraction operations may not extend closer than ten meters from the property boundary and the centerline of the road.
• Permit condition 25: The permit holder must keep records of the operation. A summary of the accounting must be submitted to the Technical Committee of the Municipality of Kihniö annually by the end of March. The annual summary must include at least the following: production data, operating hours, a summary of incidents that have increased emissions (including time, causes, effects, complaints, corrective measures), a summary of maintenance measures that are essential for environmental protection, waste generated and its forwarding. The documents used as the basis for the annual summary must be kept for three years.
• Permit condition 30: According to the Private Roads Act, the applicant for an earth material permit must agree on the use and maintenance of private roads and present a report on this to the permit issuer before commencing extraction activities. The holder of an earth material permit must take into account the obligations under the Private Roads Act (560/2018).

regulations.

At the meeting of the Technical Committee on 6.3.2024 March 4, the § 21 permit holder was ordered to submit an agreement on the use of the private road (main obligation 1) and to cease operations in violation of the permit and to return the quarry to compliance with the joint permit (main obligation 2). A running penalty was set as an enhancement for both main obligations. The basic amount of main obligation 1 is 2000 euros and the basic amount of main obligation 2 is 000 euros per non-compliant main obligation. The additional amounts for both main obligations for each additional month starting after the deadline are 1000 euros per non-compliant main obligation.

The deadline for implementing main obligation 1 (to submit an agreement on the use of the private road) was within 14 days of receiving notification of the decision, and for main obligation 2 (to terminate the procedure in violation of the permit provisions and restore the quarry area to the condition in accordance with the joint permit) by 20 May 2024. The notification was received on 12 March 2024, meaning the deadline for implementing main obligation 1 was 26 March 2024. The permit holder submitted an agreement on the use of the private road on 22 March 2024.

CONTROL

The environmental inspector and technical director conducted an inspection at the quarry site on May 22, 2024. The inspection was conducted to monitor compliance with the obligations of the issued order.

An elevation marking had been brought to the area, which is at level +162,11, but the lowest permitted intake level had not been marked. In the joint permit, the lowest permitted intake level is +160,00 (N) as per the application.₆₀). The quarry area is visually assessed to be at least a couple of meters below the lowest permitted intake level, which is also shown by the map drawing submitted by the operator on 21 January 2021 (the water level in the quarry area is at level +158,46). During the inspection, there was a lot of water at the bottom of the quarry area.

Wooden poles painted orange at the ends had been brought to the northeastern part of the area, apparently to mark the boundary of the extraction area. There were no poles in the entire extraction area as required, only in its northeastern part. Visually, the 10-meter protection zone between the quarry and the neighbor's boundary is not met. The same observation is supported by a map drawing provided by the operator, according to which the extraction has progressed a couple of meters from the boundary in the northeastern part of the area.

According to the regulation, the operator had to restore the quarry area to the condition specified in the joint permit by 20 May 2024. Main obligation 2 included permit conditions 1-2, 6-7, 19 and 30. It was also stated that the operation must comply with the joint permit granted for the operation and its permit provisions.

In its response of 31 January 2024, the operator stated that the necessary work would be carried out in April-May 2024 as soon as the snow melted. However, on 23 May 2024, the permit holder requested an additional week to restore the quarry area to the condition specified in the joint permit. The environmental inspector stated that he would inspect the area again in a week. The latest inspection was carried out on 12 June 2024. Based on the inspection, main obligation 2 has only been partially complied with. The lowest permitted intake level has not been marked, intakes that have progressed too deep have not been filled to the level +160,00, the boundaries of the excavation area have not been marked in their entirety (except for the northeastern edge), a mesh fence has not been built, the bottom of the intake area has not been sloped to prevent the accumulation of surface water, a clarification basin has not been built, and intakes that have progressed too close to the neighbor's boundary have not been filled to restore the 10-meter safety distance to the property boundary.

COMPLIANCE WITH AND MONITORING THE JOINT LICENSE

Maanrakennus Kalevi Viitaharju Oy has repeatedly acted in violation of the permit provisions of the joint permit and main obligation 2 has not been complied with in full. The supervision is described in this decision, and it shows the content of the order issued in the case and its incomplete implementation. To the extent that the order issued has been complied with, the matter has been recorded in this decision. The threatened fine procedure is lapses with respect to main obligation 1.

Along with the agenda:

• Joint permit decision, technical committee 17.10.2018 § 50
• agreement for the use of a private road
• pictures from the inspection on June 12, 2024

Prepared by: Environmental Inspector Elsi Hietaranta, tel. 044 7865 650

According to the financial unit-specific implementation report on June 30, 2024, the implementation percentage of the operating expenses of the entire technical committee is 48,2% and the implementation percentage of operating income is 47,2%.

The interim reports of housing companies owned by the municipality of Kihniö will also be discussed.

The technical director presents the financial situation at the meeting.

Accompanying material is a comparison of actual results.

The technical director presents current and ongoing issues.

• Cleaning services; change to technical department
• Property management and maintenance
• Renewal of building regulations and update of permit fees
• Next meeting Wed 2.10.2024
• Investment situation

Background

The municipality of Kihniö/technical department has joined Hansel's Electricity and Portfolio Management framework agreement for 202–2024 and the agreement is valid until 31 March 2025. Hansel has put out a tender for the joint procurement of the Electricity and Portfolio Management 2024–2028 framework agreement and applications for the procurement must be submitted by 31 March 2023.

The Technical Committee approved joining the joint procurement at its meeting on March 15, 2023, Section 21. Other alternatives for competitive bidding for electricity were also discussed during the meeting.

The municipality's annual electricity consumption was approximately 1400 MWh. The average price of electricity purchased under the Hanselin Electricity and Portfolio Management framework agreement in 2022 was 8,17 cents/kWh.

Before joining the Hansel framework agreement, the technical director investigated the options and savings potential related to electricity procurement in more detail. The technical director has negotiated with a representative of VENI Energia Oy regarding electricity procurement. VENI Energia Oy's customers include over 50% of Finnish municipalities and cities. The volume of electricity procurement covers approx. 10% of Finland's electricity consumption. The average price of electricity purchased for its customers in 2022 has been approx. 4 cents/kWh. The municipality of Kihniö has also been a VENI customer before joining the Hansel framework agreement.

Since VENI Energia Suomi Oy's electricity tendering and electricity procurement service will likely achieve greater savings in electricity procurement, the Technical Director has approved a service agreement with VENI Energia Oy for electricity tendering and electricity procurement service, including price fixing services.

Choosing an electricity supplier for a period 01.04.2025-31.12.2028

The municipality of Kihniö and its subsidiaries have requested a bid for an electricity sales agreement through VENI Energia, which will agree on a price mechanism and margin.

The procurement has not been divided into parts, as procurements of the same nature and made over the same period of time have been considered to naturally belong to the same procurement entity.

Price determination

The price of electricity consists of the seller's margin, profile cost, SYS and EPAD price fixings made as percentages and/or unfixed Spot shares, the production and consumption volume fee valid during the delivery period of the transmission system operator Fingrid, and the Datahub's point-of-use fees valid at any time. The monthly hourly profile cost (+/-) is calculated and charged to the customer monthly as described in the request for quotation.

The monthly, quarterly and annual products defined on the Nasdaq Oslo ASA derivatives market (System and EPAD) are used as reference prices for electricity mortgage pricing.

The product can be fixed as long as the product in question is listed on Nasdaq Oslo ASA. The price for the period can also be determined by the spot price (monthly average), either fully or partially. The price of a system and area price difference product must be able to be fixed in five (5) installments (max. 10 installments in total).

Offers received by the deadline

• Imatran Seudun Sähkö Oy
• Northeast Satakunta Electricity
• Turku Energy Energy Solutions

All bidders were eligible to bid.

All offers are in accordance with the request for quotation.

Selection criteria

The selection criteria for the offers were overall economic efficiency and the lowest price as the comparison criterion.

The price comparison was made in accordance with the provisions of the request for tender in the section "Criteria for the subject of procurement", i.e. the margin used in the comparison was formed from the tender prices as follows: (ENOYR * 0,8) + (SPOT month-month * 0,2). The margins for the quarterly and monthly product were allowed to be no more than the margin for the annual product.

The total price points were calculated from the comparison margin using the formula presented in the request for quotation (lowest given value / offered value) *maximum points. The cheapest offer received the most points.

The above-mentioned selection criteria were presented in the call for tenders.

Recommendation on the supplier to choose

VENI Energia's recommendation as an electricity supplier is Turku Energia Energiaratkaisut, as its offer is the most affordable, taking into account the selection criteria presented in the request for tender.

The municipality of Kihniö is applying for a demolition permit for an old, dilapidated school building located on property 250-403-7-7. The justification for the demolition of the building is that school activities have been moved to an extension built in connection with the Kettukallio school in 2013 due to indoor air quality problems. The old school building has been empty and cold since then. The building's district heating and electricity connections have been demolished. The building hinders the development of the transport and yard functions of the Kihniö municipality's service center, and the demolition of the building will enable more functional and safer yard arrangements. The building has been subject to vandalism during its unoccupied period (breaking windows, littering the ross floor, graffiti, climbing on the roof), which poses a safety risk, especially since it is located in the yard of a functioning school. The building has no established building protection values.

Zoning

Regional zoning plan

The Pirkanmaa Regional Plan 2040 is in force in the area, in which the area is marked as an area for urban functions.

The marking indicates areas for housing, trade and other services, workplaces and other urban functions. The marking includes related traffic areas smaller than main roads, areas for technical maintenance, locally significant industrial areas that do not cause environmental disturbance, and locally significant recreation and conservation areas and outdoor trails.

The regional plan does not include any conservation designations for the area.

Master plan

There is no master plan for the area.

Plan

The area has a valid expansion and amendment to the Kihniö parish building plan.

Property 250-403-7-7 is marked in the local plan as a block area for buildings serving educational activities (YO). The block area is not subject to any protection markings in the local plan.

Kihniö Municipality Building Regulations

In addition to the Land Use and Building Act and Decree and other acts and regulations concerning land use and construction, the provisions of the Building Regulations must be followed in the municipality of Kihniö, unless otherwise provided for in a legally effective master plan, local plan or the Finnish Building Regulations (MRL Section 14).

Hearing from the neighbors

The applicant has consulted the neighbors. The neighbors have no objections to the matter.

Building demolition permit

A building or part of it may not be demolished without a permit in a local plan area or in an area where a building ban for the preparation of a local plan is in force, as referred to in Section 53. A permit is also required if the comprehensive plan so provides.

A permit is not required if a valid building permit, a street plan in accordance with this Act, an approved road plan in accordance with the Highways Act or an approved railway plan in accordance with the Railways Act require the demolition of the building. A permit is also not required for the demolition of a household building or other comparable small building, unless the building is considered to be historically significant or architecturally valuable or part of such an entity (MRL Section 127).

Building maintenance

The building and its surroundings must be maintained in such a condition that it continuously meets the requirements of health, safety and usability and does not cause environmental damage or spoil the environment. The building and its energy supply systems must be maintained in such a condition that, taking into account the construction method of the building, they meet the requirements set for energy efficiency (MRL § 166)

The building to be demolished has been found to have indoor air problems in studies, making it impossible to use it for its intended purpose. Repairs have been found to be financially impossible in the municipality's current situation.

In 2014 and 2019, the Pirkanmaa Regional Museum issued statements on the matter, with the 2014 statement stating that the building has great cultural and historical value.

A microbial analysis of the materials in the building was also performed on 26.92011 (Ositum Oy), the report of which recommends renewing the subfloor structures.

29.5.2012 Ark.in Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Ky has prepared a condition assessment of the object, based on an inspection carried out on 29.5. 2012. The inspection was sensory, in which no structures were damaged and no special measurements were made. The condition assessment has been solely structural.

The Kihniö Elementary School Association has submitted a proposal to the Pirkanmaa Economic Development, Transport and Environment Centre on the protection of the school building under the Act on the Protection of Architectural Heritage. The ELY Centre made a decision in the matter that it will not order the Kihniö Elementary School to be protected under the Act on the Protection of Architectural Heritage. The ELY Centre's decision was based on an overall assessment, which took into account the cultural and historical value of the site, the condition of the building and the indoor air problems in the building, as well as the repair costs. Regarding the repair costs, attention has also been paid to the general increase in construction costs. The decision has taken into account the uncertainty factors related to the condition of the building and the repair costs. The financial situation of the municipality, the long-term disuse of the building, and the fact that the municipality is not aware of a new use for the building have also been highlighted in the matter. In the overall assessment, attention has been paid to the fact that the building has no national or provincial significance.

The matter has been appealed to the Administrative Court, which made a decision rejecting the appeal on 1 November 2023 (HHO 2200/2023), stating that the Pirkanmaa Regional Development and Urban Development Centre has made its decision on the basis of and within the limits of its discretion. The competence of the Regional Development and Urban Development Centre does not include obliging the municipality to prepare a local plan in which the building would be designated as protected.

Therefore, there is no obstacle to the demolition of the building under the applicable laws (MRL, MRA, Act on the Protection of Architectural Heritage).

Prepared by: building inspector Raisa Karinsalo-Manninen

Presenter: Technical Director Henna Romppainen