SPATIAL LIMITATIONS ON FARMS IN URBAN OUTSKIRTS PROSTORSKA UTESNJENOST KMETIJ NA OBMESTNIH OBMOČJIH Nika Razpotnik Viskovic Suburbanized village on the fringe of the Kamniška Bistrica plain. Obmestna vas na obrobju Kamniškobistriške ravnine. Spatial limitations on farms in urban outskirts DOI: 10.3986/AGS51105 UDC: 91L375.635:63Lm(497.4Komenda) 711.27(497.4Komenda) COBISS: 1.01 ABSTRACT: Farms face spatial pressures, disagreements with the non-farming population, and accessibility restrictions especially on urban outskirts. Limitations within settlements prevent them from expanding farm buildings or making changes to the areas used for work on the farm. Such a situation is the result of unsuitable spatial planning of settlements, in which farmland was included within areas zoned for development. This article focuses on spatial limitations on farms in the settlement of Moste in the Municipality of Komenda. These were determined by using officially available spatial data and records and by using geographical information systems. The analysis also included applicable spatial acts by the Municipality of Komenda, on the basis of which future expansion opportunities for farms were assessed. KEYWORDS: geography, agrarian geography, spatial planning, limitations on farms, urban outskirts, Komenda, Slovenia The article was submitted for publication on May 5, 2011. ADDRESS: Nika Razpotnik Viskovic Anton Melik Geographical Institute Scientific research centre of the Slovenian academy of sciences and arts Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: nika.razpotnik@zrc-sazu.si Contents 1 Introduction 111 2 Areas and methodology 111 3 Analysis of farm locations and assessment of their expansion opportunities 114 4 Municipal spatial acts and farms' future development potential 117 5 Conclusion 119 6 References 119 1 Introduction For centuries, rural areas were exclusively agrarian areas where farm activities occupied the majority of the land. Today, when people are especially aware of the significance of the multipurpose role of farming, farms are being forced out of prime farmland. Especially farms in areas exposed to strong urbanization processes are facing spatial pressures, disagreements with the non-farming population, and accessibility limitations. Because of technological changes and demands for greater competitiveness in farming, requirements connected with the spatial regulation of farms are also changing. It is especially pressing to increase the physical area of individual farms, which demands changes in rural settlements and in the farmland belonging to them. So far, spatial planning has neither sufficiently recognized these issues nor taken them into account in planning the development of rural settlements (Perpar and Kovacic 2006). The planning process does not anticipate potential disagreements and conflicts between various land users. Unfortunately, these start to be resolved only when they arise or bubble up to the surface. In many cases, seeking a solution is very difficult and time consuming, and the parties involved are largely dissatisfied and under constant pressure. One of the key agricultural spatial issues is spatial limitations on farms. »... These are discussed when farms at a current location can no longer expand the farm buildings to modernize them or to increase their activity, or to increase or make changes to the areas used for work on the farm, which are required by the use of modern machinery. Farms located within settlements are often spatially limited, or such limitations arise when new structures are built in their immediate vicinity...« (Perpar and Kovacic 2006, 65). The inclusion of actively farmed land in parts of settlements zoned for development due to the principle of consolidating the area and increasing the density of settlement is vey problematic from the perspective of spatial limitations on farms. This often involves quality land used by working farms that create a consolidated whole along with their farmyard. The expansion of rural settlements is often directed at land that lies next to complexes of productive farmland on the outskirts of a settlement or is even owned by these farms (Perpar and Kovacic 2006). Whenever a spatially limited farm seeks to strengthen the scope of its activity and must also therfore expand the structures and areas used for work on the farm, it is necessary to relocate the farm to the edge of the settlement. This also makes the farm less disruptive for other residents of the area not engaged in farming. Such measures are difficult to implement because of demanding work on the land to prepare everything for the relocation, high costs, and social consequences for members of the farming household. Spatial pressure on farmland is especially intense in areas near towns with accelerated housing construction, which concentrates not only within the existing settlement, but is also expanding on the outskirts of the settlement. Flat areas in the vicinity of urban centers are most exposed to the (sub)urbanization process, and the development of farms is therefore even more uncertain and limited in the settlements there. This article focuses on spatial limitations on farms in the settlement of Moste in the Municipality of Komenda. Moste lies in the eastern part of the Sava Plain, about 20 km from Ljubljana and Kranj. In recent years the demand for new housing in Moste has grown strongly, and the supply has adapted to this accordingly. New areas have been zoned for construction at three locations on the edge of the settlement; a complex of single-family housing has been built at one of these locations, and multifamily units at the other two. Future spatial development in the municipality shows a tendency to continue building, in which the commercial and business function of the settlement will strengthen alongside its residential function. Social tensions are already present in Moste, arising from residents' dissatisfaction with farming activity. Here it must be emphasized that this is not only dissatisfaction on the part of new residents, but also by those that have lived in Moste for a long time but are not involved in agriculture. 2 Location and methodology Moste is an important crossroads at the juncture of the Kamniska Bistrica Plain and the Kranj Plain; that is, in the oldest area of suburbanization in Slovenia, which has been a preferred area for settlement and the concentration of economic activity for decades due to its proximity to the capital. The area is facing wr/Mmm i i I IF P fc lW/MM I- va y/,-1 New building sites/ območje novogradenj I Settlement Moste/naselje Moste 0 200 400 Scale/merilo: m Author/avtorica: Nika Razpotnik Viskovic Source/vir: RPE, 2009 © GIAM ZRC SAZU, 2011 wmmm.I h earn pa IÜ Figure 1: Location of Moste and new construction areas. a reduction in the share of the farming population and an increase in the share of commuters (Geografski atlas Slovenije 1998; Bole 2004). Moste has a clustered layout and construction is primarily expanding along the roads from Kamnik to Kranj and from Menges to Kranj (Krajevni leksikon Slovenije 1995). The extensive farmland that surrounds the compact part of the settlement, especially in the eastern part, has been included in the prime farmland protection area since 1986 (Dolgorocni plan Obcine Kamnik za obdobje 1986-2000). Nonetheless, construction is also expanding at the expense of this farmland. In the 2002 census Moste had 775 inhabitants out of the total 4,451 inhabitants in the entire Municipality of Komenda. There has been a positive trend in population change in the municipality, and with regard to new construction the same can be concluded for Moste as well. At the time of the census, 48% of the inhabitants had lived in the settlement since birth and over half had moved there. Out of a total working population of 313 people, 13 (4%) were involved in farming. Sixty-seven percent of the working population commuted to work daily, mostly to settlements outside the municipality. The many newly-built housing units and the businesses located on the outskirts of the settlements or outside them (the Komenda business district, a garden center, a logistics center, and a trucking firm) 70 -| 'sT f o 60 -J3 '3 -Q Ts 50 " bp J3 '3 40 - O u 30 - T3 'J 20 " OÍ & bp I0 -T3 0 J 1 1 tirrW 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20 Year/leto \ 06 2007 Figure 2: Building permits issued in the Municipality of Komenda, 1999-2007 (SURS). ñ c O -M o o -a S J2 £ > Year/leto 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3: Number of built (completed) homes in the Municipality of Komenda, 2002-2007 (SURS). attest to the spatial pressure in Komenda. The municipality's current spatial acts indicate that such a development trend will continue. Census data on the age of buildings in individual settlements are insufficiently robust for the needs of this article because all buildings or homes built after 1991 are grouped into a single category. This makes it impossible to define the construction dynamics in Moste itself in recent years. The municipal data on housing built from 2002 to 2007, which shows a great increase in the last year observed, is more informative. Although these data apply to the entire municipality, it is necessary to emphasize that the greatest concentration of new construction in the Municipality of Komenda is in the three largest settlements, which also have the best accessibility: Komenda, Moste, and Suhadole. Within Moste there are three new housing construction areas, all on the outskirts of the settlement, and so it cannot be ruled out that they will expand in the future. The spatial limitations on farms were determined with the help of officially available spatial data and the use of geographical information systems. The data source was official spatial data from the Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Food. The following were used to determine the position of farms in the selected settlement: data on farm locations (X and Y geographical coordinates), a digital cadastral map, the cadastre of buildings, and digital orthophotos to determine the extent of construction on land directly adjacent to farms. The analysis also included spatial acts by the Municipality of Komenda in effect for the selected settlement. The analytical section is followed by a synthesis of the findings on the state of spatial limitation on farms at the level of Moste and an assessment of their future development potential. 3 Analysis of farm locations and assessment of their expansion opportunities The source of data on the location of farms in Moste is the Farm Register; this is an official record defined by the Agriculture Act, which the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Food is responsible for establishing and maintaining. Part of the register includes keeping data for each farm on geographical X and Y coordinates that are connected with the farm's house number. This information is of key importance for locating farms in the settlement, which was carried out using geographical information systems. Each farm was categorized into one of four classes based on its location and potential for spatial expansion: A: Within the settlement. This class includes farms located within the settlement. There is very little land available for construction and the farms do not have the potential for spatial expansion within the settlement; they can therefore be characterized as »spatially limited«. The expansion of farms within the settlement can also be problematic because in such cases this often leads to opposition from the local non-farming population and social conflicts. B: Edge of the settlement with limitations. This class includes farms that are on the edge of the settlement but whose potential for spatial expansion is limited by physical barriers (major roads and waterways) or by regulations or special protection measures defined in the spatial acts of the Municipality of Komenda. C: Edge of the settlement. This class includes farms on the edge of a settlement whose potential for spatial expansion is not limited by physical barriers or spatial regulations. D: Outside the settlement. This class includes farms that are not part of the compact part of the settlement, but instead are somewhat removed from it and separated by farmland or woodland. Data from the Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia were primarily used to define farms' locations. The basis for classifying the farms were the digital orthophotos of the settlement area, which were used to identify the location of individual farms. A combination of the cadastre of buildings and a digital cadastral map were used to determine whether buildings in the immediate vicinity of the farms had a residential or non-residential function, or whether they were part of the farm being studied. In classifying and later evaluating the potential for expansion, the main principle was therefore only the physical spatial positioning of the farm within the settlement as well as possible protection measures and future plans that could be inferred from the municipal spatial acts in force. A more detailed analysis would also require more detailed study of the socioeconomic characteristics of farms, their interest in Figure 4: Location of farms in Moste. expanding their activities, the issue of succession, and the relationship of the local population to farming activity. According to data from the Farm Register, 30 farms were officially registered in Moste in 2009. Table 1: Farm locations and expansion opportunities in Moste. Class Farms (n) Farms (%) A: Within the settlement 24 80% B: Edge of the settlement with limitations 3 10% C: Edge of the settlement 3 10% The results of the analysis of farm locations show that 24 (80%) of the farms in Moste are spatially limited; that is, their future expansion is limited. This could also be one of the reasons for the growing dissatisfaction among the population disturbed by farming activity and its consequences (see examples in Figure 5). The other six farms (20%) lie on the edge of the settlement, of which three face spatial expansion limitations (Figure 6) and three could expand in principle; here, however, it is necessary to emphasize that all of them border on prime farmland protection areas, which could also limit their expansion to some extent. In this case, expanding the farm in order to increase agricultural production is not seen as coten-tious, especially if this ensures the long-term development and vitality of the farm (Figure 7). However, difficulty can arise if farm buildings are gradually transformed into residential structures. In this case, one sees once more the importance of familiarity with internal factors that are characteristic of the farm Farm A1 is located within the settlement; its expansion is limited by the road from Menges to Kranj and neighboring built-up land. Farm A2 is located within the settlement; it is a large farm and its expansion is limited by neighboring built-up land and the road from Kamnik to Kranj. Figure 5: Examples of spatially limited farms within the settlement (Class A). Farm A3 is located within the settlement; its expansion is limited by neighboring built-up land and a road. There is undeveloped land west of the farm, but this parcel is long and narrow, and so expansion in this area would be more disruptive to local residents. Farm B1 is located on the edge of the setlement in the direction of Kranj. A mitigating factor is its location in the space between two thoroughfares; the potential for expansion is open to the northwest, but about 115 m from the farm this is bordered by a floodway for the Psata River. This land is also part of the prime farmland protection area. Expanding the farm is therefore limited by both physical structures and protection measures. Figure 6: Farms on the edge of the settlement with limitations (Class B). Farm B2 is located on the edge of the settlement in the direction of Kamnik. A partial limitation is represented by three buildings on neighboring land, and the northern part of the farm borders on land that is defined as a prime farmland protection area. Expanding the farm is therefore limited by both physical structures and protection measures. Farm B3 is located on the edge of the settlement, a bit further south than Farm B2. A local road runs alongside it, and behind it is an extensive prime farmland protection area. Expanding the farm is therefore limited by both physical structures and protection measures. Farm C1 is located in the northeast part of the settlement and is now one of the larger farms there. It has the potential for spatial expansion, but it borders on land classified as a prime farmland protection area. Figure 7: Farms on the edge of the settlement (Class C). Farm C2 is located east of the settlement in the direction of Kamnik. East of it the land continues in an extensive complex of fields that is part of the prime farmland protection area. Farm C3 is located in the eastern part of the settlement. It has the potential for spatial expansion but it borders on land classified as a prime farmland protection or stem from it, especially including factors of the socio-geographic structure of the farm and factors related to its settlement, possession, demographic, production, technical, and developmental-innovative structure (Kerbler 2008). These especially include factors that have an influence on intergenerational continuity on farms (Kerbler 2010). Finally, it should also be added that none of the farms observed in Moste lie outside the compact part of the settlement. 4 Municipal spatial acts and farms' future development potential After Slovenian independence in 1991, the new economic and social policy had a strong impact on Slovenian economic and settlement conditions. Processes that had already begun earlier became even more intense during this period (Topoleetal. 2006). Future spatial development and the potential for farm expansion depend not only on spatial conditions and farmers' ambitions, but also on the development orientations of the local community. Among other things, the local communities are responsible for spatial planning, which they regulate through legislation. Oftentimes legislative changes demand that municipalities adapt their manner of administration, and the success of adapting to new operating conditions affects the success of spatial development (Marot 2010). Based on the example of the settlement of Moste or the Municipality of Komenda, it is possible to conclude that the development of non-farming activities currently takes precedence. As mentioned several times already, east of Moste there is a large area of farmland that is formally protected as a prime farmland protection area. Its quality is also indicated by the fact that this area was nationalized after the Second World War. Nonetheless, the municipality has adopted the MO4 Sloga-Moste development plan for this area, which foresees the construction of a business/warehouse complex, preserving and expanding wood-processing activities, and filling areas still empty with two new residential buildings (Odlok o zazidalnem nacrtu obmocij MO4 - Sloga Moste 2003). This development plan limits the expansion of two farms in Group C (C2 and C3), which means that their potential for expansion is greatly limited. It appears that this part of Moste would be more appropriately zoned for agricultural activity. Based on its location, this area could represent a potential location for relocating promising farms from Moste to its outskirts, although the municipality's spatial-planning vision does not recognize this as a priority. 9 In the settlement/znotraj naselja ® On the edge of the settlement with limitations/na robu naselja z omejitvami ® On the edge of the settlement/na robu naselja Area of the town-planning scheme MO4/območje zazidalnega načrta MO4 0 200 400 Scale/merilo:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ m Author/avtorica: Nika Razpotnik Viskovic Source/vir: RKG, PISO, RPE, 2009 © GIAM ZRC SAZU, 2011 Figure 8: Area of the MO4 development plan. Relocating farms can be carried out fully or partially. When an entire farm is relocated, this eliminates the problem of conflict with the rest of the environment, activities on the farm do not disturb the neighbors, and they also have sufficient space for expansion. Such a form of settlement is financially demanding and at the same time can lead to isolation of the members of the farm. The problem of isolation can be solved if only the production units of the farm and arable land are relocated to the outskirts or outside the settlement; these are the main source of annoyance (with their noise, smell, disorderliness, etc.). In this case, the family members that work on the farm and other employees must travel from their homes to the production area of the farm several times a day. In doing so, they lose a lot of time and their control of the farm deteriorates (Perpar and Kovacic 2006). With such solutions it is necessary to draw attention to the fact that relocating or expanding farms to prime farmland also calls into question the appropriateness of such moves, especially because of the danger of later changes in land zoning and, consequently, residential construction accompanying the possible abandonment of agricultural activity. 5 Conclusion Agricultural activity is being increasingly marginalized in urban outskirts. There are several reasons for this: • Strong spatial pressures by various interest groups; • Spatial limitations on farms within settlements where they cannot expand; • Opposition from fellow residents due to the disturbances caused by farm activity; • Municipal spatial acts do not protect quality farmland or seek solutions for relocating farms to more suitable locations. Coordinating various interests in use of space is the task of the municipality. When preparing strategic development plans it must define the main development vision and then adapt all other interests to it and harmonize them as much as possible. In the case of the Municipality of Komenda or Moste, it is clear that, despite the favorable conditions for preserving agricultural activity, developing this is not a priority for spatial development. The municipality is planning its development based on promoting small-business activities and is broadly opening the door to the construction of new residential structures, thereby strengthening the settlements' function as bedroom communities. Future construction will therefore be based developing prime farmland. The analysis of farm locations in Moste reveals a characteristic picture of rural plains in Slovenia. Eighty-three percent of the farms are located within the settlement without the potential for expansion. Even in cases when expansion is possible, this would be opposed by the residents of the municipality, who feel that agricultural activity negatively affects the quality of life in the settlement. Among the six farms located on the outskirts of Moste, only three currently still have the potential to expand. Carrying out the development plan for the eastern part of Moste would limit another two of these. And what about the farmers? Their interest in expanding agricultural activity and even relocating the farms to more suitable locations shows that farming is still vital in the municipality and that there is a lack of farmland (Golobic etal. 2003). Future spatial development will once again show that farmland is merely understood as empty space or as available land for promoting other functions. As such, this leaves out the many functions that farming fulfills: productive, social, and ecological. 6 References Bole, D. 2004: Daily Mobility of Workers in Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 44-1. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS44102 Digitalni ortofoto posnetki občine Komenda. Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije, 2009. Ljubljana. Dolgoročni plan Občine Kamnik za obdobje 1986-2000. Uradni list SRS 3/89, 1989. Ljubljana. Geografski atlas Slovenije. 1998. Ljubljana. Golobic, M., Marušič, I., Kovačič, M. 2003: Možnosti za usklajevanje razvoja kmetijstva z drugimi družbenimi interesi na slovenskem podeželju, primer občine Komenda. Kmetijstvo 81-2. Ljubljana. Kerbler B. K. 2008: The influence of factors of the socio-geographical structure of mountain farms in Slovenia upon farm succession statuses and decisions. Acta geographica Slovenica 48-2. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/ AGS48203 Kerbler B. K. 2010: The role and importance of owners' perceptions and opinions in preserving continuity between generations on Slovenian mountain farms. Acta geographica Slovenica 50-1. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS50102 Krajevni leksikon Slovenije. 1995. Ljubljana. Marot N. 2010: Planning capacity of Slovenian municipalities. Acta geographica Slovenica 50-1. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS50106 Odlok o zazidalnem načrtu območj MO 4 - Sloga Moste. Uradne objave Glasila občine Komenda 06, 2003. Komenda. Perpar, A., Kovačič, M. 2006: Prostorski vidiki razvoja kmetij. Dela 25. Ljubljana. PISO - Prostorski informacijski sistem občin. Internet: http://www.geoprostor.net/piso/ (2.2.2009). Popis prebivalstva, gospodinjstev in stanovanj v Republiki Sloveniji 2002. Statistični urad Republike Slovenije, 2002. Ljubljana. RKG - Register kmetijskih gospodarstev. Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano, 2009. Ljubljana RPE - Register prostorskih enot. Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije, 2009. Ljubljana. SURS SI-STAT podatkovni portal. Statistični urad Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana. Internet: http://www.stat.si/ (2.2.2010) Topole M., Bole D., Petek F., Repolusk P. 2006: Spatial and functional changes in built-up areas in selected Slovene rural settlements after 1991. Acta geographica Slovenica 46-2. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS46203 Zakon o kmetijstvu. Uradni list RS 45, 2008. Ljubljana. Prostorska utesnjenost kmetij na obmestnih območjih DOI: 10.3986/AGS51105 UDK: 91L375.635:63Lm(497.4Komenda) 711.27(497.4Komenda) COBISS: 1.01 IZVLEČEK: Kmetije se zlasti na obmestnih območjih soočajo s prostorsko stisko, s spori z nekmečkim prebivalstvom in z ovirami v prometni dostopnosti. Zaradi utesnjenosti znotraj naselij jim je onemogočena širitev gospodarskih poslopij ali ureditev funkcionalnega prostora na kmetijskem gospodarstvu. Takšno stanje je posledica neustreznega prostorskega urejanja naselij z vključevanjem kmetijskih zemljišč v zazidljiva območja naselij. V prispevku smo se osredotočili na prostorsko utesnjenost kmetij v naselju Moste v občini Komenda, ki smo jo ugotavljali s pomočjo uradno dostopnih prostorskih podatkov ter evidenc in z uporabo geografskih informacijskih sistemov. V analizo smo vključili tudi veljavne prostorske akte občine Komenda ter na podlagi tega ovrednotili možnosti za razvoj kmetij v prihodnje. KLJUČNE BESEDE: geografija, agrarna geografija, prostorsko načrtovanje, utesnjenost kmetij, obmestje, Komenda Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 5. maja 2011. NASLOV: Nika Razpotnik Viskovic Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-pošta: nika.razpotnik@zrc-sazu.si Vsebina 1 Uvod 123 2 Predstavitev območja in metodologija 123 3 Analiza lege kmetij ter ocena njihovih možnosti za širitev 124 4 Občinski prostorski akti in možnosti za prihodnji razvoj kmetij 126 5 Sklep 127 6 Viri in literatura 127 1 Uvod Podeželski prostor je bil stoletja izključno agrarni prostor, kmetijska dejavnosti je tam zasedala večji del zemljišč. V današnjosti, ko se še posebej zavedamo pomena večnamenske vloge kmetijstva, se soočamo z njegovim umikanjem z najkvalitetnejših pridelovalnih zemljišč. Kmetijska gospodarstva se zlasti na območjih, ki so izpostavljena močnim urbanizacijskim procesom, soočajo s prostorsko stisko, s spori z nekmečkim prebivalstvom in z ovirami v prometni dostopnosti. Zaradi spreminjanja tehnologij in zahtev po večji konkurenčnosti kmetijstva se spreminjajo tudi zahteve, povezane s prostorskim urejanjem kmetij. Izstopajo potrebe po večanju fizičnega obsega posameznih gospodarstev, kar zahteva spremembe v podeželskih naseljih in na pripadajočih kmetijskih zemljiščih. Prostorsko načrtovanje teh problemov do sedaj ni ustrezno zaznavalo niti upoštevalo pri načrtovanju razvoja podeželskih naselij (Perpar in Kovačič 2006). Načrtovalski proces morebitnih neskladij in konfliktov med različnimi uporabniki prostora ne predvideva vnaprej. Le-ti se žal začnejo reševati šele, ko do njih pride oziroma ko privrejo na dan. V številnih primerih je iskanje rešitev zelo zahtevno, časovno potratno, vpletene strani pa so v večini nezadovoljne in pod neprestanim pritiskom. Eden izmed ključnih kmetijskih prostorskih problemov je prostorska utesnjenost kmetij____O njej govorimo takrat, kadar te na obstoječi lokaciji ne morejo več povečati gospodarskih objektov, da bi posodobile ali razširile svojo dejavnost, ali povečati oziroma primerno urediti funkcionalnega prostora na svojem gospodarstvu, ki ga zahteva uporaba sodobne strojne opreme. Kmetije, ki so locirane znotraj naselij, so pogosto prostorsko utesnjene, ali pa to postanejo z izgradnjo novih objektov v njihovi neposredni soseščini... (Perpar in Kovačič 2006, 65) Vključevanje aktivnih kmetijskih zemljišč v zazidljiva območja naselij zaradi načela zaokroževanja območij in zgoščevanja poselitve je z vidika prostorske utesnjenosti kmetij zelo problematično. Pogosto gre za kakovostna zemljišča vitalnih kmetij, ki tvorijo z gospodarskim dvoriščem zaokrožen kompleks. Širjenje podeželskih naselij načrtovalci pogosto usmerjajo tudi na zemljišča, ki ležijo ob kompleksih proizvodnih zemljišč kmetij na obrobju naselja, ali so celo v lasti teh kmetij (Perpar in Kovačič 2006). Kadar želi prostorsko utesnjena kmetija okrepiti obseg svoje dejavnosti in bi morala zato povečati tudi objekte ter funkcionalni prostor na svojem gospodarskem dvorišču, je potrebna preselitev kmetije na rob naselja. S tem posegom postanejo kmetije tudi manj moteče za okoliške prebivalce, ki se s kmetijsko dejavnostjo ne ukvarjajo. Tovrstni ukrepi so težko izvedljivi zaradi zahtevnih zemljiških operacij za pripravo selitve, visokih stroškov ter socialnih posledic za člane kmetijskega gospodarstva. Prostorski pritisk na kmetijska zemljišča je še posebej izrazit v obmestnih območjih s pospešeno stanovanjsko gradnjo, ki ni omejena le na zgoščevanje znotraj obstoječega naselja, ampak se širi predvsem na robovih naselij. Ravninska območja v bližini urbanih centrov so procesu (sub)urbanizacije najbolj izpostavljena, zato je razvoj kmetij v tamkajšnjih naseljih še bolj negotov in omejen. V prispevku smo se osredotočili na prostorsko utesnjenost kmetij v naselju Moste v občini Komenda. Naselje leži na vzhodnem delu Savske ravni, oddaljeno približno 20 km od Ljubljane in Kranja. V zad -njih letih se povpraševanje po novih stanovanjih v Mostah zelo krepi, temu primerno se prilagaja tudi ponudba. Nova območja novogradenj so se zaenkrat oblikovala na treh lokacijah na robu naselja, od tega se je na eni lokaciji zgradila skupina enostanovanjskih hiš, na preostalih dveh pa večstanovanjske enote. Prihodnji prostorski razvoj v občini kaže težnje po nadaljevanju pozidave, pri čemer se bo poleg stanovanjske krepila tudi obrtno-gospodarska funkcija naselja. V Mostah so že prisotne socialne napetosti, ki izvirajo iz nezadovoljstva krajanov zaradi kmetijske dejavnosti. Pri tem pa je potrebno poudariti, da ne gre le za nezadovoljstvo novih priseljencev, ampak tudi tistih prebivalcev, ki v vasi živijo že dlje časa, a se s kmetijstvom ne ukvarjajo. 2 Predstavitev območja in metodologija Naselje Moste je pomembno prometno križišče, ki leži na stiku Kamniškobistriške ravnine ter Kranjskega polja, torej na najstarejšem območju suburbanizacije v Sloveniji, ki je zaradi bližine glavnega mesta že desetletja priljubljeno za naseljevanje in koncentracijo gospodarskih dejavnosti. Območje se sooča z zmanj -ševanjem deleža kmečkega prebivalstva ter povečanim deležem dnevnih migrantov (Geografski atlas Slovenije 1998, Bole 2004). Moste imajo gručasto zasnovo, pozidava pa se širi predvsem ob prometnicah Kamnik-Kranj in Mengeš-Kranj (Krajevni leksikon Slovenije 1995). Obsežna kmetijska zemljišča, ki obdajajo strnjeni del naselja, še posebej na vzhodnem delu, so od leta 1986 vključena v območje varstva najboljših kmetijskih zemljišč (Dolgoročni plan občine Kamnik za obdobje 1986-2000). Kljub temu se pozidava širi tudi na račun njihovega krčenja. Slika 1: Lega naselja Moste in območja novogradenj. Glej angleški del prispevka. Ob popisu prebivalstva 2002 je v Mostah živelo 775 prebivalcev od skupno 4451 prebivalcev v celotni občini Komenda. Trend spreminjanja števila prebivalcev v občini se je v zadnjih letih spreminjal pozitivno, glede na dinamiko novogradenj lahko podobno sklepamo tudi za Moste. V naselju je v času popisa 48 % prebivalcev živelo od rojstva, več kot polovica pa se jih je v naselje priselila. Od skupno 313 aktivnih prebivalcev se jih je 13 (4%) ukvarjalo s kmetijsko dejavnostjo. 67% aktivnih prebivalcev je vsakodnevno migriralo na delovno mesto, večinoma v naselje izven občine. O intenzivnosti pritiska na prostor v občini Komenda pričajo številne stanovanjske novogradnje ter gospodarski objekti, locirani na robovih naselij ali izven njih (Poslovna cona Komenda, vrtnarstvo, logistični center in avtoprevozništvo). Aktualni prostorski akti občine nakazujejo, da se bo tovrstni razvojni trend nadaljeval. Slika 2: Izdana dovoljenja za gradnjo stavb v občini Komenda, 1999-2007 (SURS). Glej angleški del prispevka. Popisni podatek o starosti stavb v posameznih naseljih je za potrebe tega prispevka preohlapen, saj so vse stavbe oziroma stanovanja zgrajena po letu 1991 uvrščena v skupni razred. S tem ne moremo natančneje opredeliti dinamike gradnje v zadnjih letih v samem naselju Moste. Bolj zgovoren je občinski podatek o zgrajenih stanovanjih v letih 2002-2007, ki kaže na velik porast ravno v zadnjem opazovanem letu. Kljub temu, da gre za podatek na ravni cele občine, je potrebno poudariti, da so največja žarišča novogradenj v občini Komenda ravno v treh največjih naseljih, ki so prometno tudi najbolje dostopna: Komenda, Moste in Suhadole. Znotraj naselja Moste so kar tri območja nove stanovanjske gradnje, vsa so na robu naselja, zato njihova širitev v prihodnje ni izključena. Slika 3: Število zgrajenih (dokončanih) stanovanj v občini Komenda, 2002-2007 (SURS) Glej angleški del prispevka. Prostorsko utesnjenost kmetij smo ugotavljali s pomočjo uradno dostopnih prostorskih podatkov ter uporabe geografskih informacijskih sistemov. Vir podatkov so uradni prostorski podatki Geodetske upra -ve Republike Slovenije ter Ministrstva za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano. Za ugotavljanje položaja kmetij v izbranem naselju so uporabljeni podatki o legi kmetij (geografske koordinate X in Y), digitalni katastrski načrt, kataster stavb ter digitalni ortofoto posnetki za ugotavljanje pozidanosti parcel v neposredni bližini kmetije. V analizo smo vključili tudi veljavne prostorske akte občine Komenda za izbrano naselje. Analitičnemu delu sledi sintezna ugotovitev stanja utesnjenosti kmetij na ravni naselja Moste ter ocena možnosti za njihov prihodnji razvoj. 3 Analiza lege kmetij ter ocena njihovih možnosti za širitev Vir podatkov o legi kmetij v naselju Moste je Register kmetijskih gospodarstev - uradna evidenca, ki jo opredeljuje Zakon o kmetijstvu, za njeno vzpostavitev in vodenje pa je pristojno Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano. V sklopu registra se za vsako kmetijo vodi podatek o geografskih koordinatah X in Y, ki so vezane na hišno številko kmetije. Ta podatek je ključen za lociranje kmetij v naselju, ki smo ga izvedli z uporabo geografskih informacijskih sistemov. Slika 4: Lega kmetij v naselju Moste. Glej angleški del prispevka. Vsako kmetijo smo glede na lego in možnosti prostorske širitve uvrstili v enega izmed štirih razredov: A - znotraj naselja V ta razred smo uvrstili kmetije, ki so locirane znotraj naselja. Prostih zemljišč za pozidavo je izredno malo in kmetije nimajo možnosti za prostorsko širitev znotraj naselja, zato jih lahko opredelimo kot prostorsko utesnjene. Tudi sicer je širjenje kmetij znotraj naselja lahko problematično, saj v takem primeru pogosto pride do nasprotovanja okoliškega nekmečkega prebivalstva in socialnih konfliktov. B - na robu naselja z omejitvami V ta razred smo uvrstili kmetije, ki ležijo na robu naselja, vendar njihove možnosti za prostorsko širitev omejujejo fizične ovire (prometnice in vodotoki) ali pa predpisi oziroma posebni varovalni ukrepi, ki so opredeljeni v prostorskih aktih občine Komenda. C - na robu naselja V ta razred smo uvrstili kmetije, ki ležijo na robu naselja, njihove potencialne prostorske širitve pa ne omejuje fizične ovire oziroma prostorski predpisi. D - zunaj naselja V ta razred bi uvrstili kmetije, ki se ne držijo strnjenega dela naselja, ampak so od njega nekoliko odmaknjene in ločene s kmetijskimi oziroma gozdnimi zemljišči. Za določanje lege smo uporabili pretežno podatke Geodetske uprave Republike Slovenije. Osnova za razvrščanje kmetijskih gospodarstev so bili digitalni ortofoto posnetki za območje naselja, ki so služili za prepoznavanje lege posamezne kmetije. S pomočjo kombinacije katastra stavb in digitalnega katastrskega načrta smo ugotavljali, ali imajo stavbe v neposredni soseščini kmetij stanovanjsko ali nestanovanjsko funkcijo oziroma ali so pripadajoči del opazovane kmetije. Pri razvrščanju in kasneje vrednotenju možnosti za širitev je bilo glavno vodilo torej le fizična prostorska umestitev kmetij znotraj naselja in morebitni varovalni ukrepi ter prihodnji načrti, ki jih je moč razbrati iz veljavnih občinskih prostorskih aktov. Ob bolj poglobljeni analizi bi bilo treba natančneje proučiti tudi socialno-ekonomske značilnosti kmetijskih gospodarstev, njihov interes za širitev dejavnosti, vprašanje nasledstva ter odnos okoliških prebivalcev do kmetijske dejavnosti. Po podatkih Registra kmetijskih gospodarstev je bilo leta 2009 v naselju Moste evidentiranih 30 kmetijskih gospodarstev. Preglednica 1: Lega in možnosti prostorske širitve kmetij v naselju Moste. razred število kmetij delež kmetij A - znotraj naselja 24 80% B - na robu naselja z omejitvami 3 10% C - na robu naselja 3 10% D - zunaj naselja 0 0% Rezultati analize lege kmetij kažejo, da je kar 24 kmetij (80 %) v naselju Moste prostorsko utesnjenih, torej je njihova širitev v prihodnje otežena. To bi lahko bil tudi eden izmed razlogov za vse večje nezadovoljstvo med prebivalstvom, ki kmetijsko dejavnost in njene posledice zaznavajo kot moteče (primeri na sliki 5). Na robu naselja leži preostalih šest kmetij (20 %), od tega se tri soočajo z omejitvami za prostorsko širitev (slika 6), tri pa bi se načeloma lahko razširile, vendar je ob tem treba poudariti, da vse mejijo na območja varstva najboljših kmetijskih zemljišč, kar bi njihovo širitev lahko do neke mere tudi omejevalo. V tem primeru širitev kmetije za potrebe povečanja kmetijske proizvodnje ne vidimo kot sporne, še pose -bej če je s tem zagotovljen dolgoročen razvoj in vitalnost kmetije (slika 7). Težava pa lahko nastane v primeru, če bi se gospodarska poslopja sčasoma preobrazila v stanovanjske objekte. Na tem primeru se ponovno izkaže pomen poznavanja notranjih dejavnikov, ki so značilni za kmetijo oziroma izvirajo iz nje, med njimi še posebej dejavnike socialnogeografske strukture kmetije, dejavnike poselitvene, posestne, demogeograf -ske, proizvodne, tehnične in razvojno-inovativne strukture (Kerbler 2008) in znotraj tega še posebej dejavnike, ki vplivajo na ohranjanje medgeneracijske kontinuitete na kmetijah (Kerbler 2010). Na koncu naj še doda -mo, da nobena izmed opazovanih kmetij v Mostah ne leži zunaj strnjenega dela naselja. Kmetija A1 leži znotraj naselja, njeno širi - Kmetija A2 leži znotraj naselja, gre za Kmetija A3 leži znotraj naselja, njeno širitev omejuje prometnica Mengeš-Kranj veliko kmetijo, njeno širitev omejuje pozi- tev omejuje pozidanost sosednjih zemljišč ter pozidanost sosednjih zemljišč. danost sosednjih zemljišč in prometnica ter prometnica. Zahodno od kmetije je Kamnik-Kranj. nepozidano zemljišče, vendar je ozke in podolgovate oblike, zato bi bila širitev na to območje lahko bolj moteča za okoliške prebivalce. Slika 5: Primeri utesnjenih kmetij znotraj naselja (razred A). Glej angleški del prispevka. Kmetija B1 leži na robu naselja v smeri proti Kranju. Omejitveni dejavnik pred -stavlja njena vpetost v krak med dvema prometnicama, možnost za širitev je odpr -ta na severozahodni strani, a jo cca. 115m od kmetije mejuje razbremenilni vodotok rečice Pšate. To zemljišče je tudi del območja varstva najboljših kmetijskih zemljišč. Širitev kmetije torej omejujejo tako fizične strukture kot varovalni režim. Slika 6: Kmetije na robu naselja z omejitvami Glej angleški del prispevka. Kmetija B2 leži na robu naselja v smeri proti Kamniku. Delno omejitev predstavljajo tri stavbe na sosednjih zemljiščih, severni del kmetijskega gospodarstva pa meji na zemljišča, ki so opredeljena kot območje varstva najboljših kmetijskih zemljišč. Širitev kmetije torej omejujejo tako fizične strukture kot varovalni režim. (razred B). Kmetija B3 leži na robu naselja, nekoliko južneje od kmetije B2. Tik ob njej poteka lokalna pot, za njo pa je obsežno območje varstva najboljših kmetijskih zemljišč. Širitev kmetije torej omejujejo tako fizične strukture kot varovalni režim. Kmetija C1 leži v severovzhodnem delu naselja, že sedaj spada med večje kmetije v naselju. Prostorske možnosti za širitev ima, meji pa na zemljišča, ki so uvrščena v območje varstva najboljših kmetijskih zemljišč. Slika 7: Kmetije na robu naselja (razred C). Glej angleški del prispevka. Kmetija C2 leži na vzhodu naselja v sme -ri proti Kamniku. Vzhodno od nje se zemljišča nadaljujejo v obsežen njivski kompleks, ki je del območja varstva naj -boljših kmetijskih zemljišč. Kmetija C3 leži v vzhodnem delu naselja. Prostorske možnosti za širitev ima, meji na na zemljišča, ki so uvrščena v območje varstva najboljših kmetij -skih zemljišč. 4 Občinski prostorski akti in možnosti za prihodnji razvoj kmetij Nova gospodarska in družbena politika je po slovenski osamosvojitvi leta 1991 močno zaznamovala slo -venske gospodarske in poselitvene razmere. Procesi, ki so se sicer začeli že prej, so bili v tem obdobju še intenzivnejši (Topole in ostali 2006). Prihodnji prostorski razvoj in možnost za širitev kmetij sta odvisna ne le od prostorskih razmer in ambicij kmetovalcev, ampak tudi od razvojne usmeritve lokalne skupnosti. Slednje so med drugim pristoj -ne za urejanje prostora, ki ga pravno urejamo z zakonom o prostorskem načrtovanju. Pogosto spreminjanje zakonodaje zahteva od občin prilagajanje v načinu upravljanja, uspešnost prilagajanja novim pogojem delovanja pa pogojuje uspešnost prostorskega razvoja (Marot 2010). Na primeru naselja Moste oziroma občine Komenda lahko ugotovimo, da ima trenutno prednost razvoj nekmetijskih dejavnosti. Kot že večkrat omenjeno se vzhodno od naselja razprostirajo obsežna kmetijska zemljišča, ki so formalno sicer varovana kot kvalitetna kmetijska zemljišča. O kvaliteti priča tudi dejstvo, da je bilo to območje po drugi svetovni vojni nacionalizirano. Kljub temu je občina za to območje sprejela zazidalni načrt MO4 Sloga - Moste, ki predvideva izgradnjo poslovno-skladiščnega kompleksa, ohranitev in krepitev proizvodnih lesnih dejavnosti ter zapolnitev še prostih površin z dvema novima stanovanjskima objektoma (Odlok o zazidalnem načrtu območij MO4 2003). Omenjeni zazidalni načrt tako omejuje širitev dveh (C2 in C3) kmetij iz skupine C, kar pomeni, da so njihove možnosti za širitev močno okrnjene. Slika 8: Območje zazidalnega načrta MO4. Glej angleški del prispevka. Po našem mnenju bi bilo ta del naselja primerneje nameniti kmetijski dejavnosti. Glede na položaj bi to območje lahko predstavljalo potencialno lokacijo za preselitev perspektivnih kmetij iz naselja na njegov rob, vendar prostorska vizija občine tega ne prepoznava kot prioriteto. Selitev kmetij je lahko izvedena v celoti, ali le delno. V primeru selitve celotnega kmetijskega gospodarstva je odpravljen problem konfliktnosti s preostalim okoljem, dejavnosti na kmetiji ne motijo sosedov, poleg tega pa imajo dovolj prostora za širitev. Taka oblika selitve je finančno zahtevna, obenem pa lahko povzroči izolacijo članov kmetije. Slednji problem se lahko reši, če se na rob ali izven naselja preselijo le proizvodne enote kmetije in obdelovalna zemljišča, ki so glavni vir motenj (hrup, smrad, neurejenost...). V tem primeru se morajo družinski člani, ki delajo na kmetiji, in drugi zaposleni večkrat dnevno voziti iz bivalnega na proizvodni del kmetijskega gospodarstva, s tem izgubljajo veliko časa in imajo slabši pregled nad kmetijo (Perpar, Kovačič 2006). Ob teh rešitvah je potrebno opozoriti, da se tudi v primeru selitev ali širjenja kmetijskih gospodarstev na najkvalitetnejša kmetijska zemljišča postavlja vprašanje upravičenosti teh posegov, predvsem zaradi nevarnosti kasnejših sprememb namembnosti zemljišč in posledično stanovanjske gradnje ob morebitni opustitvi kmetijske dejavnosti. 5 Sklep Kmetijska dejavnost je na obmestnih območjih vse bolj izrinjena na rob. Razlogov za to je več: • močni prostorski pritiski različnih interesnih skupin, • prostorska utesnjenost kmetij znotraj naselij, kjer se ne morejo širiti, • nasprotovanje sokrajanov zaradi motenj, ki jih kmetijska dejavnost povzroča, • občinski prostorski akti ne varujejo kvalitetnih kmetijskih zemljišč niti ne iščejo rešitev za premestitev kmetij na primernejše lokacije. Usklajevanje med različnimi interesi prostorske rabe je naloga občine, ki mora ob pripravi strateških razvojnih načrtov določiti glavno razvojno vizijo, vse ostale interese pa njej prilagoditi in v največji možni meri uskladiti. Na primeru občine Komenda oziroma naselja Moste je razvidno, da kljub ugodnim razmeram za ohranjanje kmetijske dejavnosti, razvoj le-te ni prioriteta prostorskega razvoja. Občina svoj razvoj načrtuje na spodbujanju obrtno-gospodarskih dejavnosti, na široko pa odpira vrata tudi gradnji novih stanovanjskih objektov in s tem spodbuja krepitev spalne funkcije naselij. Bodoči razvoj bo zato temeljil na pozidavi najkvalitetnejših kmetijskih zemljišč. Analiza lege kmetij v naselju Moste je pokazala značilno sliko ravninskega podeželskega prostora v Slo -veniji. 83 % kmetij je lociranih znotraj naselj a, brez možnosti širitve. Tudi v primeru, če bi bila širitev možna, bi temu nasprotovali okoliški krajani, ki so mnenja, da kmetijske dejavnosti slabšajo kvaliteto bivanja v naselju. Izmed šestih kmetij, ki ležijo na robu naselja so le tri take, ki zaenkrat še imajo prostorsko možnost za širitev. Izvedba zazidalnega načrta za vzhodni del naselja Moste pa bo omejila še dve izmed njih. Kaj pa kmetje? Njihov interes za širitev kmetijske dejavnosti in celo preselitev kmetijskih gospodar -stev na primernejšo lokacijo kaže, da je agrarna dejavnost v občini še vitalna ter da kmetijskih površin primanjkuje (Golobič in ostali 2003). Bodoči prostorski razvoj pa bo še enkrat pokazal, da kmetijska zemljišča dojemamo zgolj kot prazen prostor oziroma proste površine za spodbujanje drugih funkcij. Pri tem pa pozabljamo na številne funkcije, ki jih opravlja kmetijstvo: proizvodne, socialne in ekološke! 6 Viri in literatura Glej angleški del prispevka.