Response to interpellation 2024/25:364 on tens of thousands of new homes in Stockholm
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned housing construction in Stockholm and Bromma Airport. MP argues that the city needs 55,000 homes by 2035 1 and that the airport is the last large land reserve 1. MP claims that the airport is an economic black hole 2 and that the Armed Forces have confirmed that decommissioning will not have consequences for defense 2. KD argues that aviation is important for the economy 3 and that housing construction does not depend on the land at the airport 4 5. KD emphasizes that the airport cannot be decommissioned in the current security policy situation 6 and that it is important for the Armed Forces and healthcare 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Katarina Luhr has asked me if I intend to take any general initiatives so that housing can be built at Bromma Airport and if I, as Minister for Housing, can justify a centrally located airport with practically no regular traffic at the same time as the City of Stockholm explicitly wants to urban develop the area with a large number of homes.
Let me first point out that for the government, aviation is an important part of the transport system. Especially in a country like Sweden - with long distances and many sparsely populated areas - aviation is important for domestic travel and also has great significance for Sweden's economy, competitiveness, and openness towards the rest of the world.
That is also why the government has taken several important measures to strengthen aviation's competitiveness and improve the conditions for good accessibility by air. I can mention, as an example, the abolition of the aviation tax from July 1 this year and an increase in the state contribution for operating support for non-state airports.
When it comes to Bromma Airport, I have been very clear. It is not relevant to make any decision regarding closure during this mandate period. This is stated in the Tidö Agreement.
Since the announcement from SAS and BRA was communicated in September, an internal analysis has taken place at the Government Offices to systematically review important issues and assess the situation. The coalition partners have subsequently concluded that several issues need to be investigated more deeply before further positions can be taken.
It is, for example, about the changed conditions for civil defense needs as a result of the changed global situation and NATO membership and what significance Bromma Airport can have in these respects. It is also about what the state's basic supply of airports should look like. Bromma Airport is part of a system and is included in the basic supply.
It also needs to be investigated what should happen with the existing remaining operations at Bromma Airport. This concerns general aviation including socially important aviation, for example, ambulance flights, ambulance helicopters and police helicopters.
Another question that is important to investigate is what possibilities exist to ensure a secure airspace for remaining traffic occurring over and around Stockholm, for example for the police and medical transports but also from a total defense perspective if the operations at Bromma Airport change significantly.
It is also important to emphasize that the Armed Forces have pointed out that the total defense authorities' needs for Bromma Airport should be mapped out.
These and several other issues will therefore be investigated. As I have informed about previously in other contexts, the government intends to return to the forms for this investigation.
In conclusion: When it comes to Stockholm Municipality's plans on how they want to use the land where Bromma Airport is located, I have no reason to comment on that. The municipalities have, through the planning monopoly, the greatest responsibility for physical planning in Sweden.
The government is working for increased housing construction through measures to increase the availability of buildable land, simplify building regulations, shorten lead times in the planning and building process, and improve opportunities for home ownership. These priorities are structurally motivated and independent of how the airports in the Stockholm area are developed.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister!
In the city of Stockholm, where we stand right now, the housing queue is long. It is estimated that there is a population increase in Stockholm alone of approximately 5,000-7,000 people per year, with an increasing trend after 2040. The city of Stockholm has for some time adopted a strategy which entails that 140,000 new homes shall be produced within the city between 2010 and 2035. Approximately 85,000 of the 140,000 homes are completed or started so far. This means that an additional approximately 55,000 homes are needed until the year 2035.
But the struggle for land within the city of Stockholm is constantly ongoing. When Stockholm grows, other infrastructure is also needed for old and new residents. Wear and tear increases, for example, on all recreational areas, in parks and nature areas where Stockholmers want to spend their free time. Space is needed for sport and play. Different types of infrastructure are needed when many more are to move in.
The City of Stockholm has for a long time focused a large part of the housing construction on the so-called brown belt around the inner city, that is to say attractive land near the central city that previously consisted of older industrial areas. In principle, all land in the brown belt is now built upon or has planned urban development underway. There is basically no space left for any new residential areas. This may mean higher pressure to build in sensitive areas with more difficult, more expensive exploitations and where the competition against other interests is very high.
In the area within Bromma Airport lies the last large land reserve within the City of Stockholm. It is needed for housing construction. I can promise that. A very broad majority in the Stockholm Municipal Council agrees with me.
As an urban planner in Stockholm, one needs to be good at puzzling – and puzzling is done – so that Stockholm can retain its cultural values, its unique nature and its places for sports and cultural experiences, but also so that everyone who wants to live in Stockholm can find a place where they want to live.
Building housing at Bromma Airport has been discussed for over 30 years. On various occasions, the housing potential has been calculated, and it has been concluded that up to 35,000 homes could be built on the airport land. Furthermore, it opens up new possibilities to build in other locations within the city that currently lie under the approach area, which is currently very noise-disturbed.
In the current situation, the city has a plan to build a new district at the site with approximately 16,000 homes but also other functions such as areas for parks, sports, trade, culture, service, schools, preschools and a large number of workplaces. It fits well, not least when most, from politicians to Swedavia, agree that the airport shall be closed and that the development of aviation shall instead be directed towards Arlanda.
In the current situation, only one regular flight route operates from Bromma. All other airports must today participate in paying for Bromma to remain in operation. But above all, it is the airlines and thus, ultimately, the passengers who pay for the large cost that Bromma airport now represents. During the month of January, Bromma airport had 850 regular travelers, meaning not departures but travelers.
I wonder if the Minister, who is the responsible minister for housing, can justify a centrally located airport that is practically without regular traffic at the same time as the City of Stockholm explicitly wants to develop the area with a large number of housing units.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! It is almost a bit touching to hear Katarina Luhrs' commitment to Arlanda and to developing Arlanda airport. When Miljöpartiet sat in the government, all plans to develop Arlanda as a strong hub for air traffic were interrupted. And an aviation tax was introduced which affected Arlanda's competitiveness against other airports in the Nordic region, which has weakened Arlanda's opportunity to strengthen its competitiveness and to develop the airport. The needs that we now face and that are met at Bromma airport could potentially have been met at Arlanda airport.
It is perhaps a bit late to come now and say that we can decommission Bromma Airport very quickly without having answers on how the airspace over Stockholm shall be monitored and how one shall ensure good infrastructure for the socially important aviation. There are also no plans to move the repair and service workshops that currently exist at Bromma Airport to Arlanda, for example. There are many questions raised even if one reaches the conclusion that Bromma Airport shall be closed down.
Then I will return to what the member said about there being sky-high competition against other interests in other parts of Stockholm. We do not know exactly which interests there may be when it comes to Bromma Airport, for example, in terms of the total defense authorities' needs. But we know that the Armed Forces have underlined that it needs to be mapped out. This shall also be done in the investigation that is now to be appointed.
I can also state that there is already a condition for building housing in Stockholm. In the municipality, it concerns 94,900 dwellings, according to the Stockholm Agreement and the Sweden Agreement, of which 70,000 remain to be built in the City of Stockholm. And 135,000 remain to be built in Stockholm County by 2035.
We can, of course, return to the question of the land at Bromma Airport. But the residential construction in Stockholm does not depend on the land at Bromma Airport. On the other hand, there may be other interests that depend on the basic functions that are currently provided by Bromma Airport.
The number of passenger flights has indeed decreased, but approximately 25 percent of the traffic remains. It is about 10,000 airspace movements. All of this is monitored from the air traffic control tower at Bromma airport. The assessment is that it is not possible to move that monitoring of the airspace over our capital to Arlanda, but it needs to be met in some other way. How there is no answer to that.
That is why I repeat what I have previously said: It can be easy to make decisions to decommission, but it is very difficult to reclaim important infrastructure if it should be needed, for example based on the needs of total defense.
Even today, there are major questions that remain. How is the airspace surveillance to be managed? In the security policy situation we are in, I believe it is not only those in Stockholm who think it is urgent to keep track of the airspace over the capital. It is a security policy issue that becomes extra important to take into account because we in Sweden have an integrated civil and military airspace. The airspace surveillance that Luftfartsverket performs is therefore important for the defense.
I believe that one needs to approach this issue with respect because there are no simple solutions. One needs to look at this and have patience. One cannot assume that this airport will not be needed in the future, as it already today accommodates important parts of socially important aviation.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! I do not know if I expressed such immense enthusiasm regarding Arlanda in my speech. But it is a fact that all resources are currently being directed towards Arlanda to expand the aviation activities there.
As I said earlier, 850 people flew in the regular traffic from Bromma Airport in January. It is only Trollhättan that remains with a departure a few times a week.
Domestic aviation has, as also mentioned in the previous debate, as a whole lost 48 percent of passengers since 2019. In Swedavia's impact analysis, it is described how domestic aviation can be affected by this.
In the short term, those who are changing planes win because everything is at Arlanda, while those who want to go into Stockholm and do not want to pay for Arlanda express can experience a deterioration. Arlanda is judged to win on a collection of all flight routes by getting more passengers and thereby also strengthening the possibilities to attract more international distances. Retaining Bromma airport becomes more expensive for aviation as a whole.
The Minister mentions the reduction of the aviation tax as an investment in aviation. However, the government's decision to stick with Bromma Airport also contributes to the fact that Swedavia's large costs for Bromma, which is bleeding money today, are also maintained.
I also want to emphasize that the Armed Forces most recently in a DN article in December confirmed that a closure of Bromma Airport will have no consequences for the defense. That could also be interesting.
Retaining Bromma Airport results in exactly the economic effects that the government says it wants to eliminate. Swedavia has had to raise takeoff and landing fees generally for its airports to compensate for the fact that Bromma Airport is now an economic black hole. I wonder how the Minister views this cost, which is placed on the aviation community, the airlines, and the passengers.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! First, I want to make a very important clarification. What DN referred to and what the member is taking up concerns the needs of the military defense. It is quite rightly pointed out in the same submission I referred to that no needs for the military defense are seen in the situation we are in now. But in the same document from the Armed Forces – almost in the same sentence, I believe – it is emphasized that it is important to map out the needs for the total defense. To say that this has nothing to do with the defense's needs is simply not a correct rendering of the Armed Forces' statement. One speaks of the military need, but it is also very important to look at the total defense's needs. I do not think one should take chances with that in the security policy times we live in.
I do not hear the member raising the issue of airspace surveillance. There is no answer on how the surveillance of the airspace over Stockholm should be managed if it is not done via Bromma Airport. The person who is eager to close Bromma Airport should reasonably have an answer to the question of how we ensure basic security in the airspace over the capital. Our country is located in the continent of Europe, where we have war. One should not exaggerate this, but one should also not underestimate the risks of leaving the airspace over the capital free. It is not about scaring people, but it is about taking responsibility in a security policy era where we cannot gamble on whether we will need this infrastructure in the future as well. That is what the review of the total defense aims for, and it is this that the Armed Forces emphasize needs to be mapped out.
When it comes to costs, it is the case that several of them will remain even if Bromma Airport is decommissioned, because there are depreciation costs for investments that have been made at Bromma Airport. Those costs will also be borne by Katarina Luhr, as well as others who think that Bromma Airport should be closed. They will still need to be paid. The important thing now is to review different types of financing. The costs for the operation must, of course, be reasonable and should not affect other infrastructure.
I agree that other parts of the infrastructure need to be developed, not least the connection to Arlanda. After taking over, we are now taking measures that perhaps should have been taken a long time ago to strengthen accessibility to and from Arlanda. The Arlanda Coordinator is working on developing proposals to strengthen public transport options and accessibility, both for travelers and not least for those who work at Arlanda Airport. It is one of Sweden's largest workplaces today. Arlanda will be important for building together Sweden's infrastructure and transport system.
It is clear that one can approach the question of Bromma Airport by speaking about ensuring all the important functions that exist there today. That would at least be a more honest argument. But today, there is no answer as to where they should fit anywhere at Arlanda. One could present arguments regarding that and provide answers to those questions, which I highlighted in my response. But I do not hear anything of the sort from the member.
But even when those questions are answered, the question remains: Will we need an airport like Bromma in the future? I think one takes on somewhat too big shoes if one can say today with certainty that we will not need it. I want to be a bit more humble and say that we do not know. Therefore, we cannot take a chance and decommission such a critical infrastructure in the form of a city-adjacent airport in this security policy situation. This deserves for us to have a bit of patience.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! I know that the Minister has a strong commitment to aviation and airports, and I hear that Andreas Carlson highlights a number of measures that are wanted to be investigated further. I would then really like to emphasize that very many investigations are already in place. If I understand the Minister correctly, the Tidö parties are now sitting and going through those investigations in order to move forward.
In the DN article that I previously referred to, Swedavia's CEO Jonas Abrahamsson stated that the state today does not consider that the airport is needed from a preparedness perspective. I believe it is urgent to take a stand on whether the airport is needed or not. Today it stands and costs money and is of less use than it could be from a housing construction perspective. Several of the reasons for preserving the airport that the minister highlights concern things that could be solved in different ways. But then one must quickly find answers as to whether it can be solved or not.
I believe that as Minister for Infrastructure and Minister for Housing, one needs to keep two thoughts in mind at all times. There is a great interest in using this land in another way. I truly hope that Minister Carlson takes on the housing minister's hat, has an in-depth discussion with the coalition partners, and arrives at a solution that can benefit Stockholm better in the future.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! If it had been about holding two thoughts in your head at the same time, perhaps this question would have been a bit easier than it is. But there are significantly more thoughts and questions than that which need to be held in your head at the same time. If one does not have answers to those questions, I believe the best thing is to get to the bottom of them. As the Armed Forces have emphasized, the total defense authorities' needs for Bromma Airport should be mapped out.
Another important aspect that I touched upon is the healthcare system's needs. Today, transports are carried out with air ambulance flights. In those cases, one can reload very smoothly and time-efficiently in situations where time can mean life and death. This can be done significantly better at Bromma. It also happens at Arlanda, but having two airports to choose from can be an important success factor. Bromma is also closer to the hospitals that are located in the Stockholm area. I think that the healthcare system's needs should also be high on the priority list. It is about the transport of the sick, but it is also about the transport of organs. Organ donations in our elongated country today are many times dependent on very fast, efficient, and reliable transports. There, aviation plays an important role that is about life and death.
When I say that it is important to highlight this, it is not about holding just two thoughts in the head at the same time, but several. I can repeat our message: This needs to be investigated again. A lot has happened since several previous investigations were conducted. We have a completely different security policy situation. We do not know what needs we will have in the coming years, even less in the longer term. Of course, it is easy to make decisions, but in the future, people might say: It was hasty - we did not see it coming. Now we see it coming. We have a security policy sensitive situation, and in that case, one needs to have ice in the stomach. The commitments one has to build housing in Stockholm do not stand or fall with the ground at Bromma Airport.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.