Saaremaa residents could lose beachfront development exemptions
Estonia's Environmental Board warns that exemptions to coastal construction limits approved earlier may not carry over into Saaremaa's new comprehensive plan. The municipality wants to defend residents' interests and will seek to keep them.

Saaremaa Municipality, on Estonia's largest island, faces the risk that previously approved exemptions allowing building close to the shoreline will not be carried over into its new comprehensive plan. The warning comes from the Environmental Board, the state agency that oversees the use of natural resources. The issue affects owners who have bought land or plan to build in the coastal zone.
On islands, construction is generally barred within 200 meters of the shoreline. Most of the former municipalities in Saare County had earlier negotiated exceptions for certain areas. Saaremaa now has more than 110 such areas, covering nearly 1,000 hectares.
What the Environmental Board says
Kaili Viilma, head of the board's nature use department, explained that under the Planning Act, adopting a new comprehensive plan invalidates the previous one. The reductions to construction exclusion zones approved under it then lapse as well. The municipality must review whether they are justified and resubmit the applications.
Viilma said that if highly valuable species or habitats have appeared in these areas, or the coastline has changed, the board may decide the earlier justification no longer holds. The board confirmed that all reductions approved under existing detailed plans must be reviewed. However, if construction within a reduced zone has already begun, the restrictions will not be reinstated and the zone will remain as originally planned.
The municipality's position
Saaremaa Deputy Mayor Priit Riim said people either inherited or purchased properties where the zone had been cut by 100 meters. In his view, it would be unfair to tell them the 200-meter limit now applies again. The municipality will still apply to the Environmental Board for the exemptions. If the board rejects them, Riim believes it should bear responsibility. He argued that taking these rights away would amount to interfering with people's property rights.


