The ministry did not erase the developer's footprint from the proposal of the new building law

Significant contradictions that turn the new building law of the Ministry for Regional Development (MMR) into a developers' construction standard remain in the paragraph format. The reasons for the fundamental comments from the Czech National Committee of ICOMOS have simply been erased by the office or they pretend that they do not exist. Most comments from the ministry have been postponed until the submission of the entire material, making it impossible to assess them.
MMR insists on the integration of state heritage protection authorities within the scope of their protective zones into building offices. In addressing this comment, it deleted the reasons for disagreement from the Czech National Committee of ICOMOS.
"We reiterate that partial integration will lead to a split in state heritage protection between two different systems of state administration bodies with different central administrative offices, resulting in the emergence of a schizophrenic organizational model," stated Prof. Václav Girsa, president of the Czech National Committee of ICOMOS.
"Furthermore, we reiterate that partial integration concerning the protective zones of properties listed on the UNESCO World Heritage list is contrary to the international legal obligations of the Czech Republic, lowers the level of their protection, and thus jeopardizes the retention of these properties on the World Heritage list,” he added.
This fact was emphasized by the Scientific Council of the General Directorate of NPÚ on January 23, 2020.
"In the case of World Heritage properties, the proposed legal regulation contradicts the obligations that the Czech Republic undertook when it joined the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage." The proposal for resolution is not in accordance with the conclusions of the Joint Monitoring Mission of UNESCO/ICOMOS in the Historical Centre of Prague, which took place in March 2019.
In this context, it is essential to highlight that the entities associated with the Chamber of Commerce, which authored the proposal for the paragraph format, have extensive construction plans that are in long-term conflict with the regulatory regime of the protective zone of the Prague Monument Reserve under the Heritage Protection Act and the international obligations of the Czech Republic concerning UNESCO.
For these entities, any reduction in the level of protection in the protective zone opens up the possibility of significant economic benefit.
"The integration of heritage protection into building offices in the area of protective zones will effectively prevent their protection. We will witness more massive demolitions of existing, even valuable, buildings for the sake of spatial gain, particularly in the directly adjacent areas to historical city centers such as Prague, Telč, or Olomouc, and countless others, with very negative consequences for them," Prof. Girsa added.
The new building law does not prevent the worst illegal constructions; without permission, construction will continue. A subsequent permit can be obtained if the construction begins in good faith, then it is sufficient to just pay a fine of 2 to 4 million crowns. From the developer's perspective, this is a minor expense, absorbed in the construction costs. MMR did not accept the proposed change in paragraph 3 of section 140, which was supposed to prevent this. According to the ministry, this good faith is in accordance with the substantive intent of the law.
The preparation of the new building law is proceeding in an entirely chaotic manner, contradicting the legislative rules of the government. The material sent as a proposal for resolving comments is merely a fragment of the material that should be presented to the commenting bodies. Entire passages of the law itself, the introductory report, and dozens of amendment bills are missing. In this situation, it is impossible to responsibly assess whether a given comment has been adequately addressed, as these materials are interlinked and must be reviewed in context. This method of legislative creation can result in a legislative mess.