Y\u0131llard\u0131r, Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi\u2018nde artarak devam eden talana kar\u015f\u0131 T\u00fcrk M\u00fchendis ve Mimar Odalar\u0131 Birli\u011fi\u2018ne ba\u011fl\u0131 meslek odalar\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc m\u00fccadelede, son d\u00f6nemde s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclen davalarda, mahkemeler ard\u0131 ard\u0131na dava konusu uygulamalar\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fctmelerinin durdurulmalar\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131 verdi.<\/p>\n
Mustafa Kemal Atat\u00fcrk\u2018\u00fcn miras\u0131 ve Ankara kenti co\u011frafi yap\u0131s\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nemi nedeniyle, kamuoyunda yo\u011fun bir g\u00fcndem olu\u015fturan, Ankara kentinin en \u00f6nemli kamusal alan\u0131 Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi ile ilgili geli\u015fmeleri, dava s\u00fcrecinin akt\u00f6rleri meslek odalar\u0131 olarak detayl\u0131 bir bilgilendirmenin yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n faydal\u0131 olaca\u011f\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fbakanl\u0131k Hizmet Binas\u0131 (Ak-saray) Davas\u0131;<\/b><\/p>\n
K\u00fclt\u00fcr ve Turizm Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Ankara K\u00fclt\u00fcr ve Tabiat Varl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 Koruma B\u00f6lge Kurulu\u2018nun 10.08.2011 tarihli Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi Orman Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Gazi Tesisleri\u2018nin (yakla\u015f\u0131k 46 hektar alanda), daha sonra ilave olarak 7 hektar b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcndeki biti\u015fik parsellerde, Ba\u015fbakanl\u0131k Hizmet binas\u0131n\u0131n in\u015fas\u0131 yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere, 1. Derece Do\u011fal ve Tarihi Sit Alan\u0131 \u015ferhinin kald\u0131r\u0131larak, sadece 3. Derece Do\u011fal Sit Alan\u0131 olarak tesciline ili\u015fkin karar\u0131n\u0131n iptaline ili\u015fkin davada, Ankara 11. \u0130dare Mahkemesi ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 kararla, alan\u0131n “Tarihi Sit” stat\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden dava konusu i\u015flemin iptaline karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme karar\u0131nda, K\u00fclt\u00fcr Varl\u0131klar\u0131 Koruma Kurulu\u2018nun alm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu bu kararlar\u0131n, Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi\u2018nin T\u00fcrkiye ve Ankara i\u00e7in \u00f6neminin hi\u00e7e say\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, par\u00e7ac\u0131 bir yakla\u015f\u0131mla \u00f6zel sit alan\u0131 derecesi ve niteli\u011fine ait oldu\u011fu, AO\u00c7 alan\u0131n\u0131n Atat\u00fcrk\u2018\u00fcn vasiyetine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak ama\u00e7 d\u0131\u015f\u0131 kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 ve k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fclt\u00fclmesi s\u00fcrecinin bir par\u00e7as\u0131 oldu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Buna ek olarak, dava konusu alan\u0131n konumunun Ankara\u2018n\u0131n hava koridorunda yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu karar\u0131n yap\u0131la\u015fmaya yol a\u00e7aca\u011f\u0131, alan\u0131n 1\/10.000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli koruma naz\u0131m imar plan\u0131nda tarihi \u00e7ekirdek alan\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu alan i\u00e7erisinde Atat\u00fcrk Evi M\u00fczesi- Gazi \u0130stasyonu-Bira, \u015earap, Meyve Suyu Fabrikalar\u0131- Tarihi K\u00f6pr\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki g\u00fczergah ve \u00e7evresinin de yer almas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n al\u0131nan karar\u0131n bu alanlara olas\u0131 etkisinin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n yerinde incelemeye tabi tutulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, karar\u0131n bilimsel ve teknik gerek\u00e7elerden yoksun oldu\u011fu, Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi\u2018nin kurulu\u015fundan g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fcze gelinceye kadar bir b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fck i\u00e7inde de\u011ferlendirmeye tabi tutuldu\u011funun g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, buna kar\u015f\u0131n uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu alan ile ilgili olarak al\u0131nan karar\u0131n Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi\u2018nin b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcne etki eder nitelikte olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, gerekirse t\u00fcm \u00e7iftlik arazisi \u00fczerinde detayl\u0131 bir ara\u015ft\u0131rmaya giri\u015filerek ortaya konulmas\u0131 gerekirken bu hususta da idarece bir ara\u015ft\u0131rmaya giri\u015filmedi\u011fi, kurulun alan\u0131n tarihi sit stat\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fc de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesine ili\u015fkin herhangi bir ara\u015ft\u0131rma, inceleme, yerinde de\u011ferlendirme haz\u0131rl\u0131klar\u0131 yap\u0131lmadan karar ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015f ve iptal istemimiz uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Eski Marmara Oteli Davas\u0131;<\/b><\/p>\n
Ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde; kamuoyunda “Eski Marmara Oteli” olarak bilinen alana ili\u015fkin ise Ankara 1 Numaral\u0131 K\u00fclt\u00fcr Varl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 Koruma B\u00f6lge Kurulunun 05.08.2013 \u00a0 g\u00fcn ve 865 karar say\u0131l\u0131 “AO\u00c7 alanlar\u0131na ait 1\/10000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli Koruma Ama\u00e7l\u0131 Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131nda Tarihi \u00c7ekirdek Alan\u0131 i\u00e7inde kalan 63886 ada 5 parselin tarihi sit stat\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n uygun oldu\u011funa” ili\u015fkin karar\u0131, Ankara 18. \u0130dare Mahkemesi\u2018nin 2013\/1520 E. say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yap\u0131l\u0131ncaya kadar y\u00fcr\u00fctmesinin durdurulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Tekel Alan\u0131( Bira Fab.) Davas\u0131;<\/b><\/p>\n
Benzer \u015fekilde Ankara \u0130li, Yenimahalle \u0130l\u00e7esi, Gazi Mah., Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde yer alan, m\u00fclkiyeti T\u00fct\u00fcn, T\u00fct\u00fcn Mamulleri, Tuz ve Alkol \u0130\u015fletmeleri A.\u015e.\u2018ye ait olan 2100 ada 23 ve 24 parsellere ili\u015fkin haz\u0131rlanan, \u00d6zelle\u015ftirme Y\u00fcksek Kurulu\u2018nun 06.03.2013 tarih ve 2013\/19 s. karar\u0131 ile kabul edilerek, 08.03.2013 tarih ve 28581 s. Resmi Gazete\u2018de ilan edilen 1\/10.000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131 ve 1. Derece Do\u011fal ve Tarihi Sit Alan\u0131 Koruma Ama\u00e7l\u0131 Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131 De\u011fi\u015fikli\u011finin, 1\/5000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli Koruma Ama\u00e7l\u0131 Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131n\u0131n ve 1\/1000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli Koruma Ama\u00e7l\u0131 Uygulama \u0130mar Plan\u0131n\u0131n iptali i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan ve Dan\u0131\u015ftay 6. Dairesi\u2018nin 2013\/4285 E. say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda, imar planlar\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lacak bilirki\u015fi incelemesine kadar, ileride telafisi imkans\u0131z zararlara sebebiyet vermemesi i\u00e7in y\u00fcr\u00fctmesinin durdurulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bu mahkeme karar\u0131 da \u00f6zellikle Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi arazisi i\u00e7inde bulunan bir alan i\u00e7in verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle \u00f6nemlidir.<\/p>\n
1\/10.000 \u00d6l\u00e7ekli AO\u00c7 Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131 Davas\u0131;<\/b><\/p>\n
Son olarak ise,\u00a0AO\u00c7 alan\u0131n\u0131n genelinde yap\u0131la\u015fma ve talan\u0131n \u00f6n\u00fcn\u00fc a\u00e7an kararlar i\u00e7erdi\u011fi i\u00e7in dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z “Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi Alanlar\u0131 Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131 ve 1.Derece Do\u011fal ve Tarihi Sit Alan\u0131 Koruma Ama\u00e7l\u0131 Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131” davas\u0131nda Ankara 5. \u0130dare Mahkemesi 4 y\u0131l sonra y\u00fcr\u00fctmeyi durdurma karar\u0131\u00a0<\/b>verdi. Bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 tamamen davac\u0131 odalar\u0131n itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 do\u011frular nitelikte olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen; ge\u00e7 gelen bu adalet asl\u0131nda AO\u00c7 de y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen t\u00fcm di\u011fer dava konular\u0131n\u0131 da do\u011frudan ilgilendiren bir sonu\u00e7 vermektedir. \u00a0“Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi Alanlar\u0131 Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131 ve 1.Derece Do\u011fal ve Tarihi Sit Alan\u0131 Koruma Ama\u00e7l\u0131 Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131” kapsam\u0131 itibariyle, Tekel Bira Fabrikas\u0131 d\u00fczenlemesini, Ankapark ve Hayvanat Bah\u00e7esinde Ankara B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediyesince y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen in\u015faatlar\u0131, kamuoyunda Ak-saray olarak bilinen Ba\u015fbakanl\u0131k binas\u0131 ve t\u00fcm AO\u00c7 alan\u0131n\u0131 par\u00e7a par\u00e7a b\u00f6len otoyol uygulamalar\u0131n da altl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan temel pland\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re; art\u0131k AO\u00c7 de herhangi bir yap\u0131la\u015fma uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclmesi hukuken m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Ankara 5. \u0130dare Mahkemesinin YD karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7eleri incelendi\u011finde , \u00f6ncelikle daval\u0131 taraflar\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 niteliksiz ve yan\u0131lt\u0131c\u0131 savunmalar\u0131 dikkat \u00e7ekmektedir.<\/b><\/p>\n
Ankara B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediyesi savunmas\u0131nda;\u00a0<\/b>yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 planda \u00f6nerilen otoyollarla parampar\u00e7a etti\u011fi AO\u00c7 arazisinin par\u00e7alanm\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131na son vermek amac\u0131nda oldu\u011funu iddia edebilmi\u015ftir. Belediye AO\u00c7\u2018nin sadece Ankara halk\u0131n\u0131 de\u011fil miras\u00e7\u0131 olarak t\u00fcm T\u00fcrk Milletine hizmet vermek amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yleyerek; “Disneyland tahayy\u00fcllerinde oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131n\u0131n maksad\u0131 a\u015fan ifadeler oldu\u011funu” savunmas\u0131nda belirtmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca dava konusu plan\u0131n ask\u0131 s\u00fcrecinde yap\u0131lan itirazlar\u0131 do\u011frudan reddederek; plan\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girdi\u011fini ifade edip, halk\u0131n karar s\u00fcre\u00e7lerine ne \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 da a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ortaya koymu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 taraflardan K\u00fclt\u00fcr ve Turizm Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n savunmas\u0131nda<\/b>\u00a0ise; sorunlu g\u00f6r\u00fclen alanlar\u0131n koruma karalar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda oldu\u011fu iddialar\u0131 yer almakta, Tekel Binalar\u0131, Ba\u015fbakanl\u0131k Binas\u0131 ve otoyollar\u0131n AO\u00c7 deki koruma kararlar\u0131n\u0131 da par\u00e7alad\u0131\u011f\u0131 unutulmu\u015ftur. Ankapark\u2018\u0131n otoyollar\u0131n ve Ba\u015fbakanl\u0131k binas\u0131n\u0131n, tamamlanan ve devam eden devasa in\u015faatlar\u0131n\u0131 unutup, “Koruma Ama\u00e7l\u0131 Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131 oldu\u011fundan alan ile ilgili olarak alt \u00f6l\u00e7ekli Koruma Ama\u00e7l\u0131 Uygulama \u0130mar Planlar\u0131 haz\u0131rlanmadan herhangi bir uygulama yap\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle alanda bir uygulama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 imkans\u0131z oldu\u011fu nedenleriyle davan\u0131n reddi gerekti\u011fini ” savunabilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
G\u0131da Tar\u0131m ve Hayvanc\u0131l\u0131k Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/b>\u00a0ise \u00e7ekingen davranarak” husumet mevkiinden \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, dava konusu i\u015flemin hukuka uygun oldu\u011fu, davan\u0131n reddi gerekti\u011fi” ni savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Davaya m\u00fcdahil olan Ba\u015fbakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ibretlik savunmas\u0131nda ise “Ak-saray”\u0131n devasa g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcs\u00fc ve tamamlanm\u0131\u015f olan Ankara Bulvar\u0131 unutularak; “dava konusu plan\u0131n uygulamaya y\u00f6nelik olarak haz\u0131rlanan bir plan olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, AO\u00c7 arazisi \u00fczerinde uygulamaya ge\u00e7ilebilmesi i\u00e7in bu alanlar\u0131n etaplar halinde 1\/5000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli naz\u0131m imar planlar\u0131n\u0131n ve 1\/1000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli uygulama imar planlar\u0131n\u0131n haz\u0131rlanmas\u0131n\u0131n gerekmekte oldu\u011fu, ancak hen\u00fcz bu a\u015famaya gelinmemi\u015f durumda oldu\u011fu, davaya konu planla s\u00f6z konusu alan i\u00e7in herhangi bir yap\u0131la\u015fma \u015fart\u0131 veya tam kullan\u0131m getirilmemi\u015f oldu\u011fu, plan notlar\u0131yla getirilen d\u00fczenlemelerin hukuka uygun oldu\u011fu, dava konusu plan\u0131n \u015fehircilik ilkelerine, planlama esaslar\u0131na, kamu yarar\u0131na, imar ve koruma mevzuat\u0131na uygun olarak haz\u0131rland\u0131\u011f\u0131” iddia edilerek; davan\u0131n hukuki dayanaktan yoksun oldu\u011fu ve reddi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015f, mahkeme alenen yanl\u0131\u015f y\u00f6nlendirilmek istenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Ankara 5. \u0130dare Mahkemesi\u2018nin iddialar, savunmalar ve bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda verdi\u011fi y\u00fcr\u00fctmeyi durdurma karar\u0131 gerek\u00e7elerinde, 4 ana ba\u015fl\u0131k yer almaktad\u0131r.<\/b><\/p>\n
Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131n\u0131n \u0130\u00e7eri\u011fi ile ilgili de\u011ferlendirme;<\/b><\/p>\n
Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi Alanlar\u0131 Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131 ve 1.Derece Do\u011fal ve Tarihi Sit Alan\u0131 Koruma Ama\u00e7l\u0131 Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klama raporunun Ama\u00e7 alt ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda “Ankara Metropoliten alan\u0131n ortas\u0131nda da\u011f\u0131n\u0131k ve par\u00e7al\u0131 bir bi\u00e7imde yer alan Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi arazilerinin a\u00e7\u0131k ve ye\u015fil alan potansiyelinin, Atat\u00fcrk`\u00fcn vasiyetnamesi do\u011frultusunda modern tar\u0131m tekniklerinin ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131l\u0131p uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve pasif ye\u015fil peyzaja y\u00f6nelik modern tar\u0131m alanlar\u0131- a\u011fa\u00e7land\u0131rma alanlar\u0131 ile halk\u0131n e\u011flenmesi ve dinlenmesi i\u00e7in “rekreasyon i\u015flevlerine” y\u00f6nelik \u015fehrin makroplan\u0131 ile b\u00fct\u00fcnle\u015ftirilerek de\u011ferlendirmesi ama\u00e7lanmaktad\u0131r.” denilmekle, \u00f6ncelikle tar\u0131m\u0131n ve sonras\u0131nda rekreasyon i\u015flevlerinin ana i\u015flevler olarak esas al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc tespiti yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Buna kar\u015f\u0131n plan kararlar\u0131 ve a\u00e7\u0131klama raporu verilerine g\u00f6re, ana fonksiyon olan tar\u0131m 339,01 hektar ile alan\u0131n % 7,65 ini kaplamakta iken, \u00f6rne\u011fin yollar, toplam 587,29 hektar ile % 13,26 oran\u0131nda oldu\u011fu, 2. ana fonksiyon t\u00fcr\u00fc olarak ama\u00e7larda tan\u0131mlanan ye\u015fil ve rekreasyon i\u015flevlerinin oran\u0131n\u0131n ise % 41.21 oldu\u011funun g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, bu durum dava konusu planda ana i\u015flevin \u00f6ncelikle ye\u015fil alan ve rekreasyon fonksiyonu oldu\u011funu, ikincil olarak tar\u0131m fonksiyonun d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi,\u00a0bu durum, Atat\u00fcrk`\u00fcn \u015fartl\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131s\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir durum olu\u015fturdu\u011fu, alan\u0131n I. Derece Do\u011fal ve Tarihi Sit Alan\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve yap\u0131 yasakl\u0131 bir alan oldu\u011fu, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde, yol alan\u0131 oran\u0131n\u0131n, dava konusu planda do\u011frudan “tar\u0131m alanlar\u0131” olarak b\u0131rak\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan ana i\u015flev fonksiyonundan da fazla oldu\u011funun g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/b><\/p>\n
Alansal Kullan\u0131mlar ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 incelendi\u011finde “Mevcut Hayvanat Bah\u00e7esi”, “Mevcut Sosyal Tesis Alan\u0131”, “Mevcut Spor Tesisleri Alan\u0131”, “Mevcut Sanayi ve Depolama Tesisleri (MT) (Uzun D\u00f6nemde Kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclen Alanlar” gibi g\u00f6sterimler plan dilinden daha \u00e7ok analiz diline uygun g\u00f6sterimler oldu\u011fu belirtilerek planlama diline uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, herhangi bir plan notu getirilmeden birlikte kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, “Tar\u0131msal \u00dcretim Alan\u0131 ve A\u011fa\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lacak Alan”, “K\u00fclt\u00fcr-Park ve Rekreasyon Alan\u0131” gibi hangi plan karar\u0131n\u0131n verildi\u011fi belirsiz alanlar \u00f6nerildi\u011fi, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bir naz\u0131m plan karar\u0131 niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131yamayaca\u011f\u0131 belirlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Plan notlar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmede;<\/b><\/p>\n
Dava konusu plan raporunda AO\u00c7 Alan B\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u0130\u00e7indeki Mevcut Sanayi ve Depolama Tesislerinin “Uzun D\u00f6nemde Kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclen Alanlar” olarak tan\u0131mland\u0131\u011f\u0131, bug\u00fcne kadar ya\u015fanan s\u00fcre\u00e7 i\u00e7erisinde \u00f6zel yasalarla Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi m\u00fclkiyetinden \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015f, ancak 1. Derece Do\u011fal ve Tarihi Sit Alan\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde bulunan, yani bu alanlar\u0131n d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmesinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc koruma kararlar\u0131 ile kesinle\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. Dava konusu planda ise, bu alanlara \u2018Mevcut Sanayi ve Depolama Tesisleri” denilmekle, var olan fonksiyonun korundu\u011fu, ancak “Uzun D\u00f6nemde Kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclen Alanlar” olarak tan\u0131mlanmakta bu alan\u0131n d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclece\u011fi ifadesinin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu ikili tan\u0131mlaman\u0131n belirsizlik ortaya \u00e7\u0131kard\u0131\u011f\u0131, ayn\u0131 zamanda bu tan\u0131mlaman\u0131n planlama diline uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, dava konusu planda bu g\u00f6sterimin verildi\u011fi alanlar\u0131n plan\u0131n projeksiyon s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde hangi fonksiyonda kalaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, plan raporunda uzun d\u00f6nemin plan\u0131n projeksiyonuna g\u00f6re de\u011fil, yap\u0131 ve tesislerin ekonomik \u00f6m\u00fcrlerini tamamlamalar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, bu durumda, plan kendi projeksiyonuna ba\u011fl\u0131 karar getirmedi\u011fi, bu da bu tesislerin plan\u0131n projeksiyon d\u00f6neminde “mevcut sanayi ve depolama tesisi” olarak kalmas\u0131 yani korunmas\u0131 anlam\u0131na geldi\u011fi belirtilerek koruma kararlar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131 somutlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ula\u015f\u0131m \u015femas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmede;<\/b><\/p>\n
Davaya konu alan i\u00e7erisinde ula\u015ft\u0131rma kolayl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flanabilmesi i\u00e7in yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f (ve halen yap\u0131m\u0131 devam eden) olan yol g\u00fczergahlar\u0131 ile ilgili yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekli \u00f6n inceleme ve de\u011ferlendirmelerin yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, \u00f6zellikle \u015fehir i\u00e7erisinde a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclen yeni yol hatlar\u0131 ile ilgili bir Ula\u015f\u0131m Ana Plan\u0131 dahilinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi ve tek ba\u015f\u0131na bir hat \u00fczerinde a\u00e7\u0131lacak yollarla ilgili t\u00fcm \u015fehre etkisinin (olumlu olarak yans\u0131mas\u0131 i\u00e7in) detayl\u0131 olarak inceleme alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekli oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Oysaki dava s\u00fcrecinde Ankara B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir belediyesinin en \u00f6nemli proje olarak ifade etti\u011fi otoyol uygulamas\u0131 tamamlanm\u0131\u015f durumdad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ayr\u0131ca mahkeme karar\u0131nda da hata olarak belirtilen Ula\u015f\u0131m Ana Plan\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n yap\u0131lan otoyol ve di\u011fer ula\u015f\u0131m uygulamalar\u0131 sonras\u0131, belediyece Ula\u015f\u0131m Ana Plan\u0131 yap\u0131m\u0131na ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015f, halen Gazi \u00dcniversitesi taraf\u0131ndan analiz \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 devam etmektedir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemece de tespiti yap\u0131lan bilimsel altyap\u0131s\u0131 olmayan ula\u015f\u0131m kararlar\u0131 AO\u00c7\u2018nin koruma kararlar\u0131na zarar verdi\u011fi gibi Ankara\u2018n\u0131n ula\u015f\u0131m sorunlar\u0131na \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm olup olmayaca\u011f\u0131 da belirsiz durumdad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Kent ekolojisi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirmede;<\/b><\/p>\n
G\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fczde biyolojik \u00e7e\u015fitli\u011fin korunmas\u0131 ve s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclmesi i\u00e7in ekolojik \u00f6neme sahip alanlar\u0131n \u00e7e\u015fitli stat\u00fclerde koruma alanlar\u0131 olarak ilan edilmesi ve bu alanlarda s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclebilir bir kent mozai\u011finin yer almas\u0131 kaynak y\u00f6netimi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan en \u00e7ok vurgu yap\u0131lan konulardan biridir. Bu alanlar\u0131n ekolojik planlamas\u0131nda peyzaj\u0131n zaman i\u00e7inde ge\u00e7irdi\u011fi de\u011fi\u015fimin saptanmas\u0131 ve modellenmesi, koruma ama\u00e7l\u0131 planlar\u0131n birincil parametrelerindendir.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131 karar\u0131nda, Ankara kentinin ekolojik e\u015fiklerinden \u00f6nemli bir peyzaj de\u011feri olan AO\u00c7\u2018nin kentin fiziksel yap\u0131s\u0131na katk\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n ve vazge\u00e7ilmezli\u011finin bir kez daha kan\u0131tland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fcyoruz.<\/b><\/p>\n
Mahkeme, Ankara B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediyesi\u2018nin plan kararlar\u0131 ve uygulamalar\u0131 ile, Ankara\u2018n\u0131n ve AO\u00c7\u2018nin biyolojik \u00e7e\u015fitlili\u011finin par\u00e7alanmamas\u0131 gereklili\u011fi vurgulan\u0131rken, kentsel geli\u015fimlerin AO\u00c7 gibi peyzaj ekolojik de\u011ferlerde olu\u015fan, hem tar\u0131msal peyzaj, hem vadi, hem de yer alt\u0131 ve yer \u00fcst\u00fc su ekosistemlerini yok etme riski belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Ekolojik de\u011feri d\u00fc\u015fen peyzaj par\u00e7as\u0131n\u0131n kentteki \u00e7evre kalitesini d\u00fczenleme ve iyile\u015ftirme y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki katk\u0131s\u0131 daha d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011fu, \u00e7evre kalitesinin d\u00fc\u015fmesinin sonu\u00e7ta insan sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve yasam kalitesini etkiledi\u011fi, k\u00fcresel \u0131s\u0131nman\u0131n etkilerinin giderek hissedildi\u011fi g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fczde kent ekolojisine sayg\u0131l\u0131 davran\u0131lmas\u0131 ve planlar\u0131n bu do\u011frultuda haz\u0131rlanmas\u0131n\u0131n kamu yarar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00e7ok \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirten yarg\u0131 karar\u0131, s\u00f6z konusu plan\u0131n, \u00a0Biyo\u00e7e\u015fitlilik S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ve Avrupa Peyzaj S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi gibi iki \u00f6nemli uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu tespitini de yapmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ankara ekolojisi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nemli bir rezerv alan\u0131 olan Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi\u2018nin, bir tar\u0131msal matris olmas\u0131 (tar\u0131msal \u00fcretim alanlar\u0131n\u0131n peyzajdaki en y\u00fcksek y\u00fczdeye sahip alan kullan\u0131m\u0131 olmas\u0131) gerekirken, bug\u00fcn bu \u00f6zelli\u011finden gittik\u00e7e uzakla\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/b><\/p>\n
Sonu\u00e7 olarak Ankara 5. \u0130dare Mahkemesi, Ankara B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediye Meclisi`nin 13.08.2010 g\u00fcn ve 2494 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla onaylanan “1\/10.000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi Alanlar\u0131 Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131 ve I.\u00a0Derece Do\u011fal ve Tarihi Sit Alan\u0131 Koruma Ama\u00e7l\u0131 Naz\u0131m \u0130mar Plan\u0131n\u0131n ve eki olarak onaylanan “1\/10.000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli Ula\u015f\u0131m Semas\u0131” ile “1\/1000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli Ula\u015f\u0131m (Yol-Kavsak vb.) Uygulama Projesi”nin; planlama hiyerar\u015fisine y\u00f6nelik ilkelere uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, naz\u0131m \u0130mar plan\u0131 tekni\u011fi ve ilkelere uygun haz\u0131rlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, naz\u0131m plan kararlar\u0131 ile getirilen fonksiyonlar\u0131n da\u011f\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n AO\u00c7`nin kurulu\u015f amac\u0131na uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, naz\u0131m plan kararlar\u0131 ile getirilen fonksiyonlar\u0131n 1. Derece Do\u011fal ve Tarihi Sit Alan\u0131`na uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, planla getirilen ikili fonksiyonlar\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131na y\u00f6nelik plan notlar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klama getirilmedi\u011fi, plan notlar\u0131 ile ilgili belirsizlikler bulundu\u011fu, ula\u015f\u0131m \u015femas\u0131n\u0131n haz\u0131rlanmas\u0131nda \u00f6n inceleme ve de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ula\u015f\u0131m \u015femas\u0131n\u0131n haz\u0131rlanmas\u0131nda bilimsel bir altyap\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, peyzaj ekoloji prensiplerinin g\u00f6z ard\u0131 edildi\u011fi, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla imar mevzuat\u0131, \u015fehircilik ilkeleri, planlama esaslar\u0131 ve kamu yarar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu sonucuna var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan dava konusu i\u015flemlerde hukuka uyarl\u0131k bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u00d6te yandan; “dava konusu i\u015flemin imar plan\u0131 ve uygulama projesine ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulunduruldu\u011funda, uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131n, telafisi g\u00fc\u00e7 zararlar do\u011furabilece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r” \u015feklinde sonland\u0131r\u0131larak Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi\u2018nde, TMMOB \u00c7evre M\u00fchendisleri Odas\u0131, TMMOB Harita ve Kadastro M\u00fchendisleri Odas\u0131 Ankara \u015eubesi, TMMOB Mimarlar Odas\u0131 Ankara \u015eubesi, TMMOB Peyzaj Mimarlar\u0131 Odas\u0131, TMMOB \u015eehir Planc\u0131lar\u0131 Odas\u0131 Ankara \u015eubesi ve TMMOB Ziraat M\u00fchendisleri Odas\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fc t\u00fcm AO\u00c7 davalar\u0131na referans olmu\u015ftur. Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi alan\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, tarihi ve do\u011fal varl\u0131k olarak k\u00fclt\u00fcrel miras\u0131m\u0131z\u0131 korumak ad\u0131na a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z davalar sonucunda almaya ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z iptal kararlar\u0131 ile AKP iktidar\u0131n\u0131n tarihi, k\u00fclt\u00fcrel ve do\u011fal varl\u0131klar\u0131m\u0131za y\u00f6nelik tehditlerine, sald\u0131r\u0131lar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fcm\u00fcz hakl\u0131 m\u00fccadele tescillenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mesleki sorumlulu\u011fu ve kentsel kamusal alanlar\u0131 koruma bilinciyle hukuki m\u00fccadelemiz s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclecektir.<\/b><\/p>\n
Bas\u0131n\u0131m\u0131z ve Kamuoyunun bilgilerine sayg\u0131yla sunar\u0131z.<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
TMMOB \u00c7evre M\u00fchendisleri Odas\u0131<\/b><\/p>\n
TMMOB Harita ve Kadastro M\u00fchendisleri Odas\u0131 Ankara \u015eubesi<\/b><\/p>\n
TMMOB Mimarlar Odas\u0131 Ankara \u015eubesi<\/b><\/p>\n
TMMOB Peyzaj Mimarlar\u0131 Odas\u0131<\/b><\/p>\n
TMMOB \u015eehir Planc\u0131lar\u0131 Odas\u0131 Ankara \u015eubesi<\/b><\/p>\n
TMMOB Ziraat M\u00fchendisleri Odas\u0131 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Y\u0131llard\u0131r, Atat\u00fcrk Orman \u00c7iftli\u011fi\u2018nde artarak devam eden talana kar\u015f\u0131 T\u00fcrk M\u00fchendis ve…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":40571,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2010],"tags":[1685],"class_list":{"0":"post-9438","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-basin-aciklamalari","8":"tag-aoc"},"acf":[],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/eonmeet.com\/pol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/eonmeet.com\/pol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/eonmeet.com\/pol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eonmeet.com\/pol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eonmeet.com\/pol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9438"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/eonmeet.com\/pol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9438\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eonmeet.com\/pol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40571"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/eonmeet.com\/pol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eonmeet.com\/pol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eonmeet.com\/pol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}