A year and a half after the new Building Act took effect, it is becoming clear that the key to the reform’s success lies in consistent decision-making practices and the presumption of consent.
When the new Building Act took effect, expectations among investors and developers were high. After years of criticism of lengthy permitting procedures, it was expected to bring faster processes, less red tape, and a more predictable investment environment.
The basic direction of the reform is correct. The integration of permitting processes, an emphasis on project preparation before proceedings begin, the digitization of communication, and the strengthening of designers’ accountability are steps that can make the entire system more efficient in the long term. However, after more than a year of practical implementation, it is becoming increasingly clear that the success of the reform depends not only on the quality of the legislation, but also on whether a consistent and stable decision-making practice can be established.
In practice today, investors, developers, and designers are not only dealing with the actual wording of the law, but above all with its interpretation and application—the scope of documentation, the relationship to specific permitting regimes, and the functioning of the construction information system. For the investor, the most important factor is not the length of the proceedings themselves, but the ability to realistically plan their course. Predictability is, in many cases, more valuable than shortening deadlines.
Similar projects today do not always face the same requirements from the authorities. This is not a criticism of individual agencies—it is a natural period during which new decision-making practices are being established following a major reform. The question is not whether this process will take place, but how long it will last.
A separate issue is the presumption of consent by the relevant authorities—a concept that likely best captures the philosophy of the new law. If an affected authority fails to comment on a proposed project within the specified time limit, it is deemed to have no objections. Inaction is no longer a safe option; silence carries legal consequences. Yet it is precisely this mechanism that raises the most questions regarding its application today—from the conditions under which it arises to the implications for judicial review of decisions.
The greatest test of the new Building Act today is not its text, but the ability to build trust in the system. Ultimately, this will determine whether investors will be able to rely on the new rules when making long-term decisions.
