Construction offices claim that the new law has not reduced the administration

Prague - Workers at building offices are having problems with the new building law that has been in effect since January. They claim it is confusing and has not simplified administration. This follows statements from building offices to ČTK. Lawmakers had hoped that the new legislation would simplify administration.
    The new law has brought significant changes; for example, instead of the original building permit for small constructions, a notification is now sufficient. In the past, the preparation of a construction, including permits, often took longer than the actual execution. However, building offices now claim that the notification is not simpler for citizens; they must submit a lot of documents.
    According to Ludvik Paulus from the building office in Hradec Králové, while there has been an increase in cases that do not require a permit or notification, a large portion of constructions still requires zoning decisions or so-called zoning consent. Thus, builders continue to have to obtain dozens of permits or statements regarding the construction from various authorities or organizations, such as operators of gas, electrical, water, and other networks.
    Jaroslav Bárta from the building office in Plzeň claims that, for citizens who are building a house on their own, communication with the building office has not become simpler since January. "The fact that it is sufficient to notify, for example, the construction of a family house up to 150 square meters, is a myth," he stated. According to him, the notification must be accompanied by roughly the same documentation as before, and additionally, the notification must be preceded by the issuance of so-called zoning planning information, which must also be requested first.
    Paulus also criticizes the law's lack of clarity. "The law and regulations are several times more extensive than the previous legal framework, understanding the law itself is complex because it contains interconnections between various parts and especially provides different procedural variants," he added.
    The head of the building office in Blansko, Petr Rizner, is also critical of the new building law. "Negative experiences predominately prevail, both among investors and staff at the building office. The law contains errors, and the implementing regulations are from December 2006; interpretations of individual paragraphs are lacking, and if they exist, they differ," he stated.
    The new law also poses problems for citizens. "The public was not familiar with the old building law, let alone being able to navigate the new one. Just filling out the mandatory forms causes problems despite the assistance we are trying to provide," said Petr Malotín from the building office in Prague 6.
    According to construction companies contacted by ČTK, it is too early to evaluate the building law, but they have not noticed any decrease in administrative burden. "We can evaluate the pros and cons of the law in about a year. The biggest mistake would likely be to think about amendments already now. The best approach is to wait until all participants become accustomed to the new regulation," said the spokesperson for Metrostav, František Polák. However, he also found a positive aspect in the law. "The law allows for the acceleration of the building process, for example, by requiring that one matter be addressed only once. However, it depends on the courage of the state administration to actually proceed in this way," he said.
    "From the developer's perspective, the level of administrative burden has not changed," added Jan Zachariáš, marketing director of the development company Finep.
    The amendment to the law introduced stricter and more frequent ongoing inspections by officials from building offices at construction sites, even after completion. For construction without a permit, for which a notification is required, a fine of up to 200,000 crowns can now be imposed.
    The long-awaited amendment, aimed at supporting regional development and housing construction, replaced regulations from the mid-1960s. The law was criticized by the ODS before its approval. They were unhappy that the law expands the scope for expropriation, limits municipal councils, and distances the performance of state administration from citizens. They also claimed that the proposal does not shorten time limits, does not simplify administration, and will lead to a significant increase in the number of officials.