There are dozens, if not hundreds, of those cases throughout the Czech Republic: projects that are for various reasons in conflict with existing building regulations, and therefore have not been issued a building permit, will suddenly have an easier way to implement. The reason is the current draft amendment to the New Building Act, which will be addressed in the third reading on May 26 at a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
In a completely confusing number of changes and adjustments, which have so far undergone the Chamber of Deputies and the Economic Committee, there are several dangerous provisions that weaken the public interest. This follows from an analysis carried out by the Czech Chamber of Authorized Engineers and Technicians in Construction (ČKAIT) from publicly available documents published by the Chamber of Deputies.
One of the most egregious cases is the fact that under the new Building Act, if adopted, the proceedings and procedures initiated before the adoption of the new Act will be completed. “This can de facto lead to the legalization of a number of controversial projects, where investors have failed to comply with applicable legal standards. For example, legislators delete the requirement that living rooms have direct daylight and direct ventilation,” describes Ing. Robert Špalek, Chairman of ČKAIT.
According to him, the retroactivity contained in the proposal is completely non-standard. In all major amendments or new laws, it is traditionally stated within the framework of transitional provisions that proceedings which have not been finalized before the date of entry into force of this law will be completed in accordance with existing, not new, regulations.
The simplification of documentation goes against existing case law
The appearance of the purpose of the draft of the new Building Act is strengthened by a number of other provisions. These include, for example, simplified documentation submitted to the building authority, which is processed only at the level of documentation for land management. It seems that building authorities are relieved by this law of responsibility for supervising the safe construction. Due to the fact that when placing the building, the issues of technology, building statics, energy intensity or fire safety are not addressed in sufficient detail, there may be a diametrical difference between the permitted and the implemented project. Not to mention its quality.
“Will the building authorities control every implementation? Even those that are not subject to approval? Or will the building authorities finally, in order to be sure, require the submission of documentation for the construction to be checked? We are not actually returning to the two-stage permitting procedure in greater detail than is currently the case, and therefore is there no simplification of the permitting process? ”Asks the chairman of ČKAIT.
According to President Špalek, the legislators deviated from the current court practice in an effort to speed up construction proceedings. ČKAIT encounters the requirement for the most detailed documentation for the currently valid building permit in the case law of the courts, according to which the building authority is to set the conditions for the execution of a specific construction in the building permit according to the documentation verified by it. It must be complete, convincing and must adequately address how the permitted construction will be carried out.
In the opinion of the Chamber, in the case of documentation for a building permit, the scope and content of the existing documentation for issuing a joint (territorial and building) permit should be used, ie not only the documentation for a zoning decision, as follows from § 158 of the draft new building law. Just because the permitting process must ensure the protection of all relevant public interests. The proposed fundamental simplification of project documentation is not in the interest of the builder, designer or the public.
Acceleration of marks without warranty
If the creators of the new Building Act reduced the mentioned “public interest” to the speed of construction proceedings, the current draft of the Building Act does not fulfill that either. The fiction of consent applies only to the opinions of the authorities concerned. The Ministry of Regional Development does not, in fact, guarantee a repetitive deadline of 30 or 60 days for issuing a decision by the building authority.
If the building authority requests that the project documentation or application be supplemented, a new period will begin for the builder. Adherence to the deadline is thus purely formal, as the statutory deadline can be repeated indefinitely. In addition, the new Building Act does not impose any sanctions on building authorities for non-compliance with deadlines. So nothing changes in the permitting process in this direction!
As ČKAIT has pointed out in the past, the accelerated process of building permits may be at the expense of their quality. The notion of chaos is also exacerbated by the fragmentation of building regulations. While now two technical regulations apply – one for Prague and the other for the rest of the Czech Republic – four technical regulations would now apply: for Prague, Brno, Ostrava and the others. “While in food the state fights against double quality, in construction it obviously does not mind different quality requirements. That other building materials should be used in Prague, Ostrava and Brno and that different people lived here than in the rest of the country? ”Points out Robert Špalek.
Building authorities will (probably) represent the courts
Apart from the possible collapse of the new system of building authorities, led by the “super-office” in Ostrava, it is not unrealistic to overwhelm the courts. It is they who will decide on all disputes. And they are far from being limited to cases where the state will be sued due to controversial construction by neighbors or even municipalities and cities. As a result, in addition to the costs associated with the change in the system of building authorities, the new Building Act may also mean arbitrations in the order of billions of crowns from taxpayers’ money.
The wave of lawsuits may also concern authorized persons, in this particular case designers. Although, according to the current amendment, they are not participants in the construction procedure, as a result they are to bear significant responsibility. “I can imagine cases where old projects for land management will be submitted as a basis for a building permit, so that if the building is not approved, the civil engineer or architect is held liable for material responsibility,” said Chairman Špalek, who said it was in direct conflict with the statutory liability. authorized person the absence of its mandatory supervision during the implementation of the project.
