서울시와 자치구의 도시계획 분권화 수준과 역할 분담에 관한 연구

서울시와 자치구 간 도시계획 분권화 수준과 역할 분담을 분석했다.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the status quo of decentralization in urban planning between Seoul and its autonomous districts, and to analyze the perceptions of issues related to the decentralization among public officials in Seoul and its autonomous districts and expert groups. This study is based on a literature review, field survey and analysis.

This study is conducted based on the following three research methods: Review of theories and issues related to urban planning decentralization, analysis of the status quo of urban planning decentralization between Seoul and its autonomous districts, and analysis of city and district officials and experts’ perceptions of urban planning decentralization issues. The main results from this study are as follows. First, as a result of examining the urban planning authority of the autonomous districts of Seoul from a perspective of the principle of subsidiarity, their urban planning authority is not recognized under the current law.

It is, however, recognized for the autonomous districts of Gyeonggi-do, which is the same basic self-governing body as Seoul in South Korea. According to the Local Autonomy Act, in the autonomous districts of Seoul, the maintenance and management of urban planning roads are only designated as essential affairs out of eight affairs, whereas all the eight affairs are designated as essential ones in the autonomous districts of Gyeonggi-do. According to the National Land Planning Act and related ordinances, in the autonomous affairs of Seoul, their affairs are limited to the delegation of authority.

However, the autonomous districts of Gyeonggi-do can establish their basic plans and draft their management plans. They can even directly decide and change their district unit plans. Second, as a result of examining the urban planning operation cases of the autonomous districts of Seoul from a perspective of urban planning authority, it is observed that even the limited authority is not properly exercised. The autonomous district urban development plans established by the autonomous districts of Seoul vary depending on their conditions or the will of their heads due to the limitations of the non-statutory nature of the plans.

Even if such a plan is established, it is difficult to form a consensus due to insufficient consultation with Seoul. In addition, the district unit plans drafted by the autonomous districts of Seoul require a lot of procedures and time to be decided by the Seoul Metropolitan Government. In the case of youth housing in the station areas, where the Seoul Metropolitan Government is in charge of from legal drafting to its decision, the participation and consultation from the autonomous districts in the process is quite limited.

Third, public officials in Seoul and its autonomous districts and expert groups show differences in perception of the level of decentralization of urban planning in the autonomous districts of Seoul and their urban planning operations. Seoul officials perceive that the current level of decentralization is appropriate, while autonomous district officials and expert groups perceive that the current level of decentralization is insufficient.

Regarding the operation of urban planning in the autonomous districts, Seoul officials recognize problems from the standpoint of the policy management agency, while autonomous district officials and experts recognize the lack of authority in autonomous district urban planning as a problem. Fourth, public officials in Seoul and its autonomous districts and expert groups are all forming a consensus on the direction of expanding the autonomous districts' urban planning authority and strengthening their urban planning capabilities. As for the expansion of the autonomous districts' urban planning authority, it is observed that they are all agreed to the gradual expansion.

There is also a consensus among them that the current urban planning capabilities of the autonomous districts are insufficient. In order to strengthen their urban planning capabilities, all three groups recognize that it is necessary to reinforce a dedicated organization such as the Urban Planning Standing Planning Team and to institutionalize autonomous district urban development plans. Based on the results of this study, it is necessary to clarify the division of roles between Seoul and its autonomous districts and the urban planning authority of the autonomous districts through discussions with the Seoul Metropolitan Government.

It is also needed to ensure the drafting right of the autonomous districts of Seoul by specifying the standards to exercise the right to draft, and to strengthen participation (consultation) rights such as expanding the opportunities for the autonomous districts to express their opinions. In addition, it is essential to gradually expand the autonomous districts' right to decide on urban planning. 이 연구는 서울시와 자치구 간 도시계획 분권화 수준을 분석하고, 서울시와 자치구 공무원, 전문가를 대상으로 분권화 관련 쟁점에 대한 인식을 분석하는데 목적이 있다. 연구는 크게 문헌조사와 설문조사로 구분되며, 도시계획 분권화 관련 이론 및 쟁점 검토, 서울시·자치구 간 도시계획 분권화 실태 분석, 그리고 도시계획 분권화 쟁점 관련 시·구 공무원과 전문가의 인식 분석(설문조사) 등 세 가지 방법으로 진행하였다. 이 연구를 통해 얻은 주요 결론은 다음과 같다.

첫째, 보충성의 원칙 측면에서 자치구의 도시계획 권한을 살펴본 결과, 현행법상 자치구의 도시계획고권은 인정되지 않고 있다. 반면에 같은 기초자치단체인 경기도 시·군은 인정되고 있다. 지방자치법상 자치구의 도시계획 사무는 8개 사무 중에서 도시계획도로의 유지·관리만 고유사무로 지정되어 있는 반면에, 경기도 시·군은 8개 사무 전체가 고유사무로 지정되어 있다. 국토계획법 및 관련 조례상 자치구의 도시계획 사무는 권한위임 사무에 국한되어 있으나, 경기도 시·군은 도시·군기본계획 수립과 도시·군관리계획 입안이 가능하며, 시·군에서 입안한 지구단위계획의 경우에는 직접 결정·변경이 가능하다. 둘째, 도시계획고권 측면에서 자치구의 도시계획 운영사례를 살펴본 결과, 제한적인 권한마저도 제대로 행사되지 못하는 것으로 나타났다. 자치구에서 수립하고 있는 자치구 도시발전계획은 비법정계획으로 자치구의 계획 권한은 없는 실정이다. 자치구 여건이나 구청장의 의지에 따라 계획 편차가 발생하고 있으며, 계획을 수립해도 서울시와의 협의가 미흡하여 공감대 형성에 어려움이 있다. 또한 자치구에서 입안하는 지구단위계획은 서울시 결정까지 많은 절차와 기간이 소요되고 있으며, 시에서 입안부터 결정까지 담당하고 있는 역세권 청년주택은 계획 수립과정에서 자치구의 참여·협의가 상당히 제한적이다.

셋째, 서울시와 자치구 공무원, 전문가는 자치구의 도시계획 분권화 수준과 도시계획 운영에 대해 인식 차이를 보이고 있다. 서울시 공무원은 현재 분권화 수준은 적절하다고 인식하고 있는 반면에, 자치구 공무원과 전문가 그룹은 현재 분권화 수준은 미흡하다고 인식하고 있다. 또한, 자치구의 도시계획 운영