**5. Recommendations**

On the basis of the conducted research, some recommendations for the Polish land policy framework may be formulated. They follow the examined models of Germany (Region Hannover) and Spain (Comunidad Valenciana). The first recommendation is based specifically on the German example: it is the subregional planning that should define the quantity of developable land for each municipality. The subregional level is deemed to be the functional city-region that encompasses an urban node (the city), suburban area and rural areas functionally bound with the urban agglomeration [135] (p. 269)18. The cityregional planning level is low enough to grasp, thoroughly consider and effectively manage all significant spatial phenomena that occur in and around a big city. On the other hand, it is high enough to avoid involvement in particularities that happen at the municipal level and hinder proper comprehensive land-use planning. Instead of estimating the prospective demand for housing and commercial development by municipalities themselves, growth allowances balanced at the city-regional level ought to be assigned to each municipality according to its supra-municipal function.

The second recommendation is that land classes should be embedded in the spatial planning system. The current distinction between urbanised land and various classes of rural land is separate from the core Polish planning framework. Besides, the rural land classes do not imply protection from urban development. Based on the analysed foreign experience, one can conclude that there should be unequivocal classes of *urbanised land*, *land to be urbanised* and *land not to be urbanised*. This classification should be tailored to protect rural land from urban growth. Additionally, concentrating urban growth on clearly indicated areas would significantly help to obtain rational settlement patterns. The land classes should be assigned in general local plans.

Both model frameworks agree that the *urbanised land* has to be adequately equipped with all necessary urban infrastructure. Additionally, in line with the German concept of *inner areas* (*Innenbereich*), it is recommended that the *urbanised land* has to be consistently developed in terms of density, form and layout of buildings. It is especially important in Polish circumstances, where inconsistently semi-urbanised areas are widespread and require comprehensive restructuring. Such a definition of *urbanised land* makes it suitable to continue its development without the necessity of plan adoption. Subsequently, development without a plan should be permissible only in the case of consistently urbanised

land. Only such an approach would allow for stopping the present extension of chaotically developed areas.

A logical consequence of the last recommended rule is that the *land to be urbanised* should become developable only by regulations of the detailed development plan. Following such a rule, urban extension or infilling of inconsistently developed areas would be possible only if there is a development plan that allows it.

In contrast to the current Polish regulations, complete urbanisation should be regarded as a prerequisite for ordinary land development. In both of the countries referred to, the necessary infrastructure must exist before completion or the occupation of the buildings. If a provision of all mandatory infrastructure was a requirement to develop land, the quantity of developable land would decrease, and its location would be more rational. Such a precondition may thus be considered one of the tools of developable land designation management.

All recommended regulations would help to implement a land policy that attempts to correctly respond to the two key planning questions: *how much* and *where* should developable land be designated? Consequently, the recommended regulations would directly or indirectly assist to rationalise the allocation of settlements and to protect open land from expansive development.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** The author would like to thank Janet Askew and David Amborski as well the anonymous Reviewers for helping to significantly improve the article.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
