A request for action has been received by the Kihniö Municipality Building Control on 22 June 2026 regarding property 250-403-10-56 (Haanmetsä). The request for action and its supplements are available to the board in all respects in the accompanying materials for the meeting.

According to the person requesting the action, buildings have been built on the property for years and the buildings have been left in place. The action request requires the building control to take immediate measures regarding the unauthorized construction. The person requesting the action is the property 250-403-10-54, which is in the neighborhood of the property in question. The same ownership also includes property 250-403-10-61, which is located next to property 10-54. These properties are not bordering property 250-403-10-56 (Haanmetsä), but there is a forest strip of approximately 10 meters between them.

The property Haanmetsä has been granted a deviation permit from the municipal government on 18.5.2026 §77 for the placement of a 27 m2 mobile home and a separate 15 m2 terrace. The deviation permit is not legally binding because the owner of properties 250-403-10-54 and 250-403-10-61 has appealed the deviation permit and the matter is being heard in the Hämeenlinna Administrative Court. The other neighboring properties of the property Haanmetsä have not appealed the deviation permit.

Standard

1. Request for action

The request for action requires an immediate ban on the use of the buildings located on the Haanmetsä property (Construction Act Section 134) and the imposition of a penalty payment (Construction Act Section 136) to enforce the ban.

2.Information request

The request for action also includes a request for information (Section 16 of the Public Access Act), which requests a copy of the inspection report, request for action or control note made by the official, which was drawn up in connection with the commissioning inspection carried out by the deputy building inspector on the complainant's property. In connection with the inspection in question, on 11 June 2025, the deputy building inspector discovered buildings on the property subject to the complaint.

Actions taken in response to the request for action

1.Responding to a request for information

The request for information was submitted to the building inspectorate on June 22, 2026. The deputy building inspector responded to this request for information on July 7, 2026 by email, stating that he had noticed the buildings on the Haanmetsä property while passing by and that an investigation into the matter had been initiated with the owners of the property 250-403-10-56 (Haanmetsä).

2.Instruction to bring the matter into compliance with the law

The owners of property 250-403-10-56 have been discussed by phone several times and have been instructed to apply for a deviation permit for the property to investigate the building rights on the property. The deviation permit was filed with the municipality on February 1, 2026.

3. Inspection visit to the Haanmetsä property on 29 June 2026

The request for action has demanded that the buildings on the Haanmetsä property be banned from use and that a threat of a fine be imposed as a reinforcement. These demands have been presented in an email sent on 22 June 2026. In an email received on 23 June 2026, the owner of property 250-403-10-54 has also demanded that a Haanmetsä inspection be carried out immediately on the property. This email also refers to the obligation to remove the buildings. The building inspector and the environmental inspector carried out an inspection of the Haanmetsä property on 29 June 2026 in the buildings on the property and on the property in general. The inspection toured the buildings and the surroundings. It was found that there was a mobile cabin trailer, a sauna raft, a woodshed and a dry toilet on the property. The inspection did not identify any threat to safety or health that would require an immediate ban on the use of the buildings on the property. The small amount of wastewater from the buildings had also been treated appropriately. An inspection report has been drawn up from the inspection visit and has been delivered to the owners of the Haanmetsä property on 14 August 2026.

Legislation

According to Section 141 of the Building Act 751/2023; if the owner of a building neglects his maintenance obligation, the municipal building inspection authority may order the building or part thereof to be repaired or the building's surroundings to be cleaned up. If the building or part thereof presents an obvious danger to health or safety, the building inspection authority shall prohibit the use of the building or part thereof or order the building or part thereof to be demolished. Before issuing a repair notice, the building inspection authority may order the owner of the building to submit a condition survey of the building in order to determine the repair measures that are obviously necessary for health or safety reasons.

Based on the inspection carried out on the property, no such danger or threat to health or safety was observed that would justify taking action pursuant to Section 141 of the Construction Act, i.e. prohibiting the use of the buildings. The building control authority states, however, that the compliance of buildings and structures located on the property with the permit and the conditions for their placement are a separate issue. Any unauthorized construction or other conduct contrary to the provisions on construction can be brought into compliance with the law under the provisions on administrative enforcement of the Construction Act, regardless of whether the conditions for a prohibition of use have not been established in this matter. The building control authority assesses the necessity of administrative enforcement as a whole.

Prepared by: building inspector Raisa Karinsalo tel. 044-7865 651

Applied legal guidelines

Construction Act (751/2023) Section 57, Section 141

Section 72 of the Land Use Act (132/1999)

Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003) Section 6

Construction Act (751/2023) Chapter 14

Measures taken in response to requests for action received by environmental supervision

In addition to building control matters concerning the property, the other owner of property 250-403-10-54 has made reports to the Environmental Supervision Authority regarding the treatment of the washing water from the sauna raft located on property 250-403-10-56, which was suspected of being discharged directly into the watercourse. The Environmental Supervision Authority received the reports on 18 May 2026 and 4 June 2026. As a result of the reports, a written request for clarification was sent to the property owner on 10 June 2026, requesting a report on the treatment of the sauna raft's wastewater. The deadline for the request for clarification was set at 29 June 2026. The person who made the report was informed that the matter was being processed by the Environmental Supervision Authority.

On 15 June 2026, the owner of property 250-403-10-54 demanded that the environmental authority immediately carry out an inspection visit, citing sections 182 and 185 of the Environmental Protection Act, and take coercive measures in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act and ban the use of the sauna raft. The environmental authority announced that the matter would be investigated in the first stage through a written report and that the inspection visit would be carried out, if necessary, after the deadline set for the request for clarification.

The supervision of the environmental protection authority is based on a sufficient and appropriate investigation (HL Section 31), whereby a mere notification or allegation alone is not sufficient grounds for taking administrative coercive measures, but a possible illegal situation must be verified before making a decision. The matter is investigated by means of an inspection visit, if necessary, and the means provided for in YSL Sections 180, 181 and 182 are used if necessary.

The property owner submitted the requested report to the environmental authority on June 22, 2026. Based on the report, the treatment of wastewater on the sauna raft appeared to be properly organized and there were no indications of a risk of environmental or water pollution. 

A building inspector and an environmental inspector conducted an inspection of the property on June 29, 2026. The inspection examined the treatment of wastewater from the sauna raft and other wastewater. The inspection did not detect any risk of environmental pollution or any deficiencies in wastewater treatment that would have required supervisory or enforcement measures in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act.

The owner of property 250-403-10-54 inquired on 1 July 2026 and again on 5 August 2026 about the position of the environmental supervision on the use of the sauna raft and the method of waste water treatment. He was informed that, based on the report received and the inspection carried out, the waste water treatment has been arranged appropriately and that the environmental supervision has no grounds for imposing a ban on use or other control measures. The supervision protocol can be requested by requesting a document, after which the public nature of the document will be assessed before it is sent.

Environmental monitoring conclusions

Based on the reports available to the Environmental Supervision and the inspection carried out on 29 June 2026, no situation contrary to the Environmental Protection Act has been identified in the matter that would have required the use of regulations, prohibitions or other administrative measures in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act.

Prepared by: Environmental Inspector Katja Katajisto tel. 044-7865 650

 Applied legal guidelines

Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003) Sections 6 and 31

Environmental Protection Act (527/2014) Sections 180, 181, 182 and 185

Government Decree on the treatment of domestic wastewater in areas outside sewer networks (157/2017)

Justifications for the proposed decision

Regarding the buildings and structures located on the property, the municipal government has granted a deviation permit on 18 May 2026, Section 77. In its decision, the municipal government has considered that the conditions for construction pursuant to Section 57 of the Construction Act exist and that there are no obstacles to granting a deviation provided for in the law. The decision has been appealed to the Hämeenlinna Administrative Court, as a result of which the matter has not yet been resolved with finality. The purpose of the administrative enforcement orders is to bring the illegal premises into compliance with the law. However, the entire issue of compliance with the construction permit and the conditions for placement is currently being assessed by the administrative court due to an appeal. The inspection carried out by the Building Control Authority on 29 June 2026 also did not find any obvious danger to health or safety referred to in Section 141 of the Construction Act arising from the buildings or structures that would require immediate official action.

Taking into account the above-mentioned factors, the building control authority considers that taking immediate administrative enforcement measures is not necessary at this stage and is not appropriate from the perspective of administrative legal principles. The decision of the Hämeenlinna Administrative Court can be awaited in the matter, after which the building control authority will reassess the matter and take the necessary measures in accordance with the decision of the Administrative Court.

The municipality of Kihniö carried out a cleanliness inspection of the built environment in the municipality on Monday, June 8, 2026, with the aim of monitoring the cleanliness and maintenance of the built environment, buildings and yard areas. The inspection was announced on the municipality's website on May 13, 2026.

A report on the detailed findings of the review and the measures taken based on them is included in the board's supporting materials. The report is not public because it contains personal data.

Based on the review, the situation of the municipality's built environment can be considered generally reasonable. However, a few very problematic sites were identified during the review. These sites have been identified previously. However, the cleaning of these sites has not progressed as desired despite the monitoring measures taken. If the cleaning of these sites is to be carried forward, the use of the threat of commissioning should also be considered. A preliminary discussion will be held at the board meeting on the grounds for the possible use of the threat of commissioning in the municipality of Kihniö.

The municipality of Kihniö has received a municipal initiative pursuant to Section 23 of the Local Government Act (410/2015) on 11 June 2026 regarding the environmental permit requirement for the operation of the Myyränkankaa wind farm. The initiative states that the municipality must require an environmental permit for the operation.

The initiative demands an environmental permit for the Myyränkankaa wind power project, arguing that the plan and building permit are insufficient to protect the rights of residents. The initiative justifies the requirement in particular by citing the noise, infrasound and vibration impacts, which are alleged to be underestimated and inadequately investigated, as well as the health risks caused by the large size and combined effects of the wind turbines. It also invokes the precautionary principle and the fact that without an environmental permit, the authority would be neglecting its obligation to ensure a healthy living environment if a permit is not required.

Competence of the municipal environmental protection authority

The jurisdiction of the state environmental permit authority and the municipal environmental protection authority is laid down in section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act and sections 1 and 2 of the Environmental Protection Decree (VnA 713/2014). According to section 2(3) of the Environmental Protection Decree, the municipal environmental protection authority shall handle the permit issue for activities that cause unreasonable nuisance to neighbours as referred to in section 27(2)(3) of the Environmental Protection Act, unless otherwise provided for in section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act.

A response to the proposal was requested from the wind power project operator on June 23, 2026.

Operator's response 12.8.2026

Fortum Oy states that the planning and the studies prepared for the Myyränkankaa wind power project have been carried out by appropriately experienced experts in accordance with the applicable authority guidelines. The noise and other environmental impacts of the project, as well as the combined impacts with other projects, have been assessed in connection with the planning and EIA procedure. According to the modelling, the noise levels are below the guideline values ​​for residential and holiday homes in the area.

According to Fortum Oy, the project's planning, environmental impact assessment and zoning have been guided and supervised by several authorities, and the impacts of the project have been extensively investigated as part of the zoning and EIA procedures. The company believes that the environmental impacts of the project have been adequately assessed as part of these processes.

Reasons for the decision

According to Section 27(1) of the Environmental Protection Act (527/2014), activities that pose a risk of environmental pollution, as provided for in Table 1 (directive facility) and Table 2 of Annex 1 to the Environmental Protection Act, must have an environmental permit.

According to the tables, wind turbines are not projects that are directly subject to environmental permits.

According to Section 27(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, the environmental permit must also be:
1) activities that may cause pollution of water bodies and are not projects requiring a permit under the Water Act;
2) the discharge of wastewater that may cause pollution of a ditch, spring or stream referred to in Chapter 1, Section 3, Subsection 1, Point 6 of the Water Act;
3) activities that may cause unreasonable strain on the environment as referred to in section 17, subsection 1 of the Act on Certain Neighbourhood Relations (26/1920).

For wind turbines, the need for an environmental permit may be assessed in particular on the basis of section 27, subsection 2, point 3 of the Environmental Protection Act, if the operation may cause an unreasonable burden as referred to in section 17 of the Act on Neighbourhood Relations.

An environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure has been prepared for the project, as well as the necessary reports in connection with the planning, which assess the project's key environmental and health impacts and their combined effects.

Based on the reports prepared for the project, the estimated impacts of the project are mainly minor, local or can be mitigated. According to noise and glare modelling, the operation will fall below the guideline values ​​or the impacts can be limited by technical measures if necessary.

In a similar case, the Vaasa Administrative Court has ruled in its decision of 11 May 2026 (no. 611/2026) that the obligation to obtain an environmental permit cannot be based solely on prior suspicion of possible noise or glare hazards. If, based on the available reports, the guideline values ​​are not exceeded and it has not been demonstrated that the activity has caused an unreasonable burden, the operator cannot be obliged to apply for an environmental permit. The Administrative Court also emphasized that the administrative enforcement procedure or the invitation to apply for an environmental permit is not intended to be used as a prior means of resolving the need for a permit in a situation where it has not yet been demonstrated that the activity has caused actual harmful environmental impacts.

Based on the above and the reports prepared on the project, it has not been demonstrated that the activity could cause an unreasonable burden as referred to in section 27, subsection 2, point 3 of the Environmental Protection Act and in accordance with section 17 of the Act on Certain Neighbourhood Relations. The nature of the project is therefore such that its environmental impacts can be adequately managed by means of zoning, building permits and other applicable legislation without a separate environmental permit.

The need for an environmental permit may be reassessed if the activity has practical impacts that may meet the conditions for requiring a permit laid down in section 27, subsection 2 of the Environmental Protection Act.

Applied legal guidelines

Environmental Protection Act (527/2014) Sections 27, 34

Environmental Protection Decree (713/2014) Section 2

  Act on Certain Neighbourhood Relations (26/1920) Section 17

  Local Government Act (410/2015) Section 23

 Prepared by environmental inspector Katja Katajisto

Response to the Licensing and Supervision Authority's request for statement and clarification, 26 June 2026, diary number LVV-U/84254/2026.

An extension of time has been granted for submitting a response until August 31, 2026.

In the opinion of the Technical Committee, the complaint primarily concerns the substantive assessment of individual deviation decisions. The matter has been within the scope of the appeal system provided for in the law, and the complaint procedure should not be used as a substitute for an appeal. However, if the matter is investigated, the Technical Committee considers that the decisions have been made by the competent institution in accordance with the appropriate procedure and on the basis of the available information.

The Finnish Licensing and Supervision Agency has requested an explanation from the municipality of Kihniö regarding a complaint regarding the deviation decisions of the technical committee of the municipality of Kihniö regarding waterfront construction. The request for explanation is based on Section 10, subsection 2 of the Local Government Act, according to which the agency may investigate whether the municipality has acted in accordance with the laws in force in response to a complaint.

The complaint refers in particular to the decision of the technical committee of 12 May 2026, Section 45, which concerns the application for a derogation to locate a leisure building in an unzoned coastal area on property Haanmetsä 250-403-10-56. In addition, the complaint refers to the decision of the technical committee of 2 June 2025, Section 66.

When the Technical Committee discussed the matter on 12 May 2026, it was proposed in the Section 45 official preparation that the deviation would not be supported. The preparation stated, among other things, that the property is located in an unzoned coastal area, that based on the land use review, the calculated coastal building right of the land use had already been used and exceeded, and that the creation of new construction sites in the area should be resolved through a planning review. After a vote, the Committee decided to agree to the deviation.

The technical committee of the municipality of Kihniö primarily requests that the Licensing and Supervision Agency not investigate the complaint to the extent that the complaint requires a substantive assessment of the legality of the technical committee's deviation decisions regarding shoreline construction, a reassessment of the substantive resolution of the decisions, or the taking of supervisory measures due to the deviation decisions.

The complaint is actually about the assessment of the merits of an individual deviation decision made under the Construction Act and the Land Use Act, and whether the deviation should have been granted or not granted. Such a question should primarily be resolved through the appeal procedure provided for in the law. The tasks of the Permit and Supervision Authority, pursuant to Section 4 of the Construction Act, do not include the ex post assessment of the content of a municipality's deviation decision, such that the Authority would effectively act as an appeal authority.

If the Licensing and Supervision Authority considers that the complaint should not be dismissed completely, the technical committee will alternatively request that the matter be resolved on the basis of the report presented below and that no further action be taken in the matter.

Section 4 of the Construction Act provides for the duties of the Finnish Permit and Supervision Authority in the system under the Construction Act. Based on the provision, the Authority is not responsible for acting as a general appeal authority in individual municipal decisions concerning construction or deviations. The Authority's role is related to the overall guidance and supervision of construction to the extent that it is necessary to ensure that nationally significant and regionally significant issues are taken into account in construction.

The scope of the Licensing and Supervision Agency may include, for example, construction impacts that are significant from the perspective of multiple municipalities, provinces or national land-use objectives, or that otherwise exceed the usual significance of local permit consideration. However, the substantive assessment of a deviation decision of an individual municipality concerning an individual property does not, in principle, fall within this scope of tasks.

The complaint in question concerns a local assessment of deviations from coastal construction on individual properties in the municipality of Kihniö. It has not been presented in the case, nor does it appear from the documents, that the deviation decisions would have nationally significant or regionally significant impacts in terms of construction or land use. It is therefore not a matter whose supervision would fall within the task of the Finnish Permit and Supervision Authority under Section 4 of the Construction Act.

In practice, the complaint asks for an assessment of whether the conditions for a deviation laid down in Section 57 of the Construction Act were met and whether the technical committee's assessment of the deviation was legally acceptable. Such an assessment focuses on the substantive resolution of the decision. An administrative complaint cannot replace a claim for rectification or an administrative appeal, and the resolution of the complaint cannot change, annul or reinstate a decision made by the municipality.

The complaint supervision pursuant to Section 10, Paragraph 2 of the Local Government Act is of a general nature of legality supervision. It should not be used to re-examine the merits of an individual deviation decision when the appeal mechanism provided for in the law has been available for the decision. According to the complainant's statement, no claim for rectification or appeal has been made in the matter. In reality, however, the complainant has filed an appeal against the decision of the technical committee of 12.5.2026, Section 45, with the Hämeenlinna Administrative Court.

Investigating the complaint to the extent presented would in practice mean that the Licensing and Supervision Authority would assess the substantive legality of individual deviation decisions and the exercise of discretion by the municipal institution outside the appeal system. In the opinion of the Technical Committee, such a local deviation matter concerning individual construction sites does not fall within the tasks of the Licensing and Supervision Authority as laid down in Section 4 of the Construction Act, because it does not involve national or provincial matters with significant effects that are taken into account in construction.

If the Licensing and Supervision Authority considers itself competent to assess the matter as an administrative complaint, the technical committee will present the following report.

The application for a deviation has been processed by the technical committee as a matter within the competence of the institution. An official preparation has been prepared in the matter, which describes the location of the construction site, the planned situation, the provisions of the building code, the consultation of neighbors, the review of the original site and the requirements for a deviation from Section 57 of the Building Act. The preparation has thus brought to the attention of the committee the legal and factual aspects essential for resolving the matter.

The board made the decision based on the vote taken at the meeting. The municipal body is not bound by the rapporteur's proposal for a decision, but has the authority to make a decision that deviates from the rapporteur's proposal when the decision is made in the appropriate decision-making procedure. The decision-making procedure, the vote and the result of the vote are reflected in the minutes.

The Technical Board states that the allegations regarding the adequacy of the reasons for the deviation decision and the fulfillment of the conditions for the deviation are directed at the substantive legality of the decision. Such allegations should have been examined through an appeal. In the administrative complaint procedure, it is neither appropriate nor within the jurisdiction to re-evaluate the individual permit consideration of a municipal institution.

The allegations in the complaint about a broader illegal practice are based on two individual decisions. The Technical Committee considers that it cannot be concluded from this that a general or systematic illegal practice has developed in the municipality in deviation cases concerning waterfront construction. Each deviation application will be decided on a case-by-case basis, within the limits of the applicable legislation, the building regulations, the information obtained in the case and the discretion of the decision-maker.

The complaint is in its entirety in the accompanying materials for the meeting. The expertise of Pasi Lappalainen (Nosto Consulting Oy) has been used in preparing the matter.

The Kihniö council has discussed the 2025 audit committee's evaluation report at its meeting on June 15, 2026. At its meeting, the council is to oblige the municipal government and committees to take action on the observations presented in the evaluation report and to report on these to the council by the end of August 2026.

Regarding the activities under the Technical Committee, the Audit Committee has raised two questions:

1) The inspection committee considers it important that the health center's facilities can be used as versatilely as possible in the future. What measures has the technical committee taken or planned to take to implement the most versatile use of the health center's facilities?

2) How has the technical committee monitored and will it monitor the progress of the implementation of the property management system? By when does the technical committee believe it will have the system fully implemented?

The Pirkanmaa Welfare Region has only announced at the end of 2025 the extent to which it will rent the premises of the health and service centre in the future and what changes need to be made to these premises. The changes to the premises have been made during the spring and summer of 2026. The changes to the locks and access rights are still pending. Only after these solutions have been clarified has the municipality of Kihniö been able to start investigating other uses of the premises on a more permanent basis.

The Kihniö council has decided, in connection with the approval of the 2023 budget, to establish a premises working group to prepare a concrete plan for the utilization of the health center's premises. The Kihniö municipal board has updated the composition of the premises working group at its meeting on 19 January 2026 as follows: Technical Director, Antti Kivioja, Matti Sillanpää, Jari Alkkiomäki, Jenni Vehmasto, Erja Silvennoinen. The mayor, the welfare director, the chairman of the board and the council can participate in the meetings as experts.

The facilities working group has discussed the use of the health center's facilities in several meetings. The results of these meetings have been reported to the municipal board and technical committee.

A major moisture problem was detected on the ground floor of the health center in the summer of 2025, and the required rainwater and stormwater management solutions and drying of the premises have been investigated and implemented since autumn 2025. During the spring and summer of 2027, we will only get better information about whether the premises on the ground floor will dry out as desired. It is not possible to investigate the soil under the foundation of the building in a sufficiently cost-effective manner, and the functionality of the implemented solutions (i.e. the drying of the structures) will only be seen when the water flows originating from outside the building have been controlled and the tight floor and wall coatings have been removed.

Hopefully, the ground floor premises can be renovated during 2027 and hopefully also used by the veterinarian. The current veterinary premises are not in a completely satisfactory condition due to indoor air problems, among other things. In addition, if it were possible to get rid of the current veterinary premises, it would also make it possible to get rid of other underused premises or find another solution.

The health center's well-equipped institutional kitchen and dining room have been negotiated with two different operators, but the negotiations have not led to the rental of the premises. The possibility of renting the premises is constantly marketed on the internet.

Various thoughts and ideas have been raised about the use of the premises in various meetings and discussions, but no progress has yet been made on these. The use of the premises of the Health and Service Centre in the municipality's own operations has also been considered, for example, in relation to the functions of the office buildings. However, in this case, the emptying of the premises in a very central location would mean a major change in the active activities of the area and the use of the spaces that are being emptied. In general, it can be stated that there is no particular demand for service premises in Kihniö, which significantly complicates the utilization of the premises of the Health Centre.

The municipality of Kihniö has been using a digital property management system called Granlund Manager (GM) for several years. The system has only been used to a small extent in relation to the opportunities it offers. In recent years, the usability of the digital municipal property information service developed by Senate Properties, which is responsible for state property assets, has been investigated as an alternative to Granlund Manager in data management. Based on the investigations carried out, it has now been decided to continue using Granlund Manager. The decision was influenced by the fact that its functionality is clearly more extensive than the Senate system and the costs of using it do not differ significantly from the costs of the Senate system.

During spring 2026, training in the use of GM has been provided and its use has been expanded, including by preparing for the introduction of digital service requests. The work has also drawn up a framework for the phased expansion of the use of GM, including making digital service requests via mobile phone and expanding its use to outdoor areas.

The biggest problem with using the property management system has proven to be the very incomplete initial data on buildings and the lack of long-term renovation programs (PTS). An implementation path has been drawn up to produce this data, which is based on initially compiling rough data from the entire municipality's property stock and transferring it to GM. However, this work requires significant resources. The resources available to the technical department are very limited, so the collection of this data is progressing slowly. However, the goal is that by the end of 2026 the data would exist at a rough level and that it could be transferred to GM during 2027.

The implementation of the property management system has begun and the aim is to produce its benefits in stages. According to the current estimate, the entire municipality's property stock would be in the system in good condition and in use by the end of 2027, with basic information and at least the programming of the most important regular maintenance work. The goal is that by then the system would also have a rough long-term renovation plan for the properties. The goal is also that by the end of 2027 the normal maintenance measures for all properties and their implementation would be included in the system. Even after this, refining the system's information and utilizing it as effectively as possible requires supplementing and refining the information within the limits allowed by the resources available.

This decision supplements the Section 43 decision made by the Technical Committee on 12 May 2026. This is a self-correction in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, which is not intended to change the outcome of the decision. The intention is to re-examine the matter to the extent that the specific justifications required by the Administrative Procedure Act for granting a derogation permit are added to the decision.

The Technical Committee considered the deviation application at its meeting on 12.5.2026 May 2. The preparation determined that the construction site is a 000 m² property called Haanmetsä, property code 250-403-10-56. The property is located in an unzoned area on the shores of Lake Pääjärvi and borders Lake Pääjärvi for approximately 57 meters. The application concerns the retention of a 27 m² mobile cabin on wheels in accordance with leisure living. In addition, a sauna raft has been placed on the property.

The technical committee's rapporteur proposed not to support the deviation, because based on the land use review, the right to build on the land use has already been exceeded and the right to build should be decided in the planning procedure. During the discussion, a supported counter-proposal was made, according to which the deviation was agreed to. After the vote, the counter-proposal became the decision of the technical committee.

The municipal government considered the matter on 18 May 2026 under Section 77. The municipal government approved the draft decision and granted the deviation in accordance with the voting decision of the technical committee. As a result of the decision, the deviation was granted, but the decision did not include sufficient specific justifications as to the specific reasons for which the conditions for granting the deviation permit are met.

According to the Administrative Procedure Act, an authority may re-examine a matter and correct a factual error in its decision if the decision is based on a clearly incorrect or incomplete explanation, an obvious incorrect application of the law, a procedural error has occurred when making the decision, or new, essential information has become available. Correcting a factual error requires re-examining the matter and issuing a new decision. In this case, it is necessary to supplement the reasoning for the decision, because the original decision of the technical committee and later the decision of the municipal government do not sufficiently indicate which facts and explanations have influenced the decision and on what basis the legal conditions for the deviation have been deemed to be met.

According to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act on the justification of a decision, the justification of the decision must state the factors and explanations that influenced the decision and mention the provisions applied. Since this is a deviation decision in an unzoned coastal area, the justification must also show that there is a special reason for granting the deviation as referred to in Section 57 of the Construction Act and that the deviation does not cause negative effects as referred to in that provision.

The granting of a deviation shall be deemed to be a special reason referred to in Section 57 of the Construction Act on the basis of the following facts:

1. The small scope and nature of the measure. The application concerns a 27-square-meter mobile home with no stove or water point. The terrace in front of the mobile home is separate and lightweight. The measure is clearly less in nature than the creation of a conventional waterfront building site, and does not correspond to a permanent, extensive or technically equipped leisure building complex.

1. Existing use of the construction site and adaptation to the environment. According to the applicant's declaration, the property has been kept as a natural area with trees and shrubs. The construction does not require significant land modification, and the project has not been proposed to significantly alter the landscape or natural environment of the coastal area.

2. Rthe location of the construction site in connection with existing coastal settlements and the amount of shoreline free from construction. There is existing waterfront development in the vicinity of the property. On the other side of the property, a forest plot separates the next built property from the applicant's property. The project is therefore located in an environment where the waterfront area is not entirely undeveloped natural shore. In addition to equal treatment of landowners, one of the key purposes of the design principles for waterfront development is to ensure a sufficient amount of waterfront free from development. In this case, granting a deviation permit does not actually reduce the amount of waterfront that is interpreted as free from development, because the property subject to the application is located within the area of ​​influence of existing waterfront development. The minor measure in accordance with the application does not interrupt the continuous undeveloped waterfront section or weaken the later planning flexibility of the waterfront area.

3. Consultation with neighbors and local impacts of the project. Neighbors have been consulted. Two neighboring properties had no objections to the project, and the owners of two neighboring properties have submitted comments. The comments have been taken into account in the decision-making process. Based on the overall assessment, the impact of the project on the neighborhood will be limited, considering the small size of the measure, the preservation of the construction site in a largely natural environment, and the fact that the amount of construction is substantially less than the maximum amount of the building regulations for a waterfront construction site of less than 5,000 m².

4. Equal treatment and consideration of decision-making practices. The applicant has invoked the positive deviation decision made by the technical committee on 2 June 2025 under Section 66 in a situation where the creation of a construction site would not have been unambiguously possible based on the base space dimensioning. The technical committee considers that a positive decision in this matter can be justified by the equality aspects raised by the applicant and the minor and environmentally compatible nature of the project. However, the decision is based on the circumstances of this individual case and does not constitute a general right to new waterfront construction sites in similar areas.

The deviation does not cause any harm to the zoning, implementation of the plan or other organization of the use of areas as referred to in Section 57 of the Building Act, taking into account the small size of the project, the location of the property in connection with an existing waterfront settlement and the fact that it is not a large new building complex. The decision also does not prevent a possible subsequent zoning review of the area, nor does it resolve the building rights of other areas of the base area. In addition, granting a deviation permit does not actually reduce the amount of shoreline that is interpreted as free from construction, because the measure in accordance with the application is located within the scope of influence of existing waterfront construction and does not form a new separate built section in an otherwise undeveloped shoreline zone.

The deviation does not hinder the achievement of the objectives of nature conservation or the protection of the built environment. The matter has not revealed any specific nature conservation or cultural environmental values ​​that would be endangered by the minor measure in accordance with the application. Preserving the construction site as mainly natural supports the fact that the project will not cause significant environmental change.

The deviation does not lead to construction with significant impacts and does not otherwise cause significant adverse environmental or other impacts. The measure in accordance with the application is limited in terms of area and technical equipment. Any more specific questions regarding the construction method, location, wastewater treatment, fire safety and other technical implementation will be resolved, if necessary, in a separate construction permit procedure and other competent authority procedure.

The expertise of Pasi Lappalainen (Nosto Consulting Oy) has been used in the preparation of the matter.

Changes have occurred in the leasing of the premises of the Health and Service Center due to the lease agreement between the municipality of Kihniö and the Pirkanmaa Welfare Region, which entered into force at the beginning of 2026.

Previously, the usage fee for the pool section was determined only for the use of Petäjäopisto. The last time the usage fee was decided on by the technical committee was on 15.6.2023. At that time, the usage fee was determined as €15,90/hour.

After the changed lease agreement, this Petäjäopisto pricing has also been used in the billing of Kotipihlaja sauna/swimming shifts. In addition, the municipality has been asked about the possibility of renting the pool section from an association supporting the well-being of the municipality's residents. Now there would be a need to determine the pool pricing for operators such as the above-mentioned who organize supported housing services or public benefit activities.

The monitoring of the pool's operating costs has had to be adjusted due to the changed lease agreement. Although it has not yet been possible to monitor all costs, it has been observed that the previous pricing should be increased. However, the aim is to keep the pricing reasonable, because providing access to the pool can support the well-being of the municipality's residents.

The schedule for pool shifts is agreed separately with the municipality of Kihniö.

The technical director presents the financial situation at the meeting.

Accompanying material is a comparison of actual results.

Technical Director presents current issues

• The situation of deforestation in the city center and its impact on the economy

• Investment status review

• Old school area planning

• Possible participation in the framework contract competition for the technical sectors of Hämeenkyrö, Ikaalinen and Parkano

• Start of the update of the groundwater protection plan