The proposal for a new Planning and Construction Act (the current Land Use and Construction Act) was in the opinion round at the end of 2021. The proposal was issued 568 statements. At one time, there were only slightly more of them for social security reform.
The number indicates a huge interest and a downright passionate attitude towards the law reform project. It's no wonder - the built environment affects almost everyone's life and activities.
The vast majority of Finnish municipalities took the opportunity to make a statement, as did a large number of authorities, organizations and companies. Not many people have the time to wade through a mountain of statements - but we at Rakennusteollisuus RT have sifted through the opinions of organizations, companies and cities for our work.
The reactions to the bill expressed in the statements are clearly surprise and disappointment. It seems as if some of the goals of the reform fell somewhere along the way. The original goals had mentioned the re-evaluation of the roles and number of plan levels in the land use planning system, the development of the construction control system, and the clarification of the preparation, decision-making and implementation tasks of the law. However, the draft law does not respond to these.
The perspective of the smoothness of zoning and licensing has been missing in the preparation of the law. Instead of simplifying, the planning system is proposed to be complicated with a new planning level of land use, i.e. an urban regional plan. It is difficult to find supporters among the opinion makers.
Many people wanted the bill to also include partnership planning, where the site plan is drawn up in cooperation with the municipality and the landowner. In this way, the municipalities would be able to utilize the resources of private operators in zoning, while the decision-making power remains with the municipality. The partnership zoning has not been included in the presentation.
Impact assessment is incomplete
Sanna Marini the goals of the government program, i.e. a carbon-neutral society, the strengthening of biodiversity and the improvement of construction quality, the law does aim to promote, but in many places based on insufficient information or using contradictory means.
For example, there is a broad consensus on the importance of carbon neutrality among opinion makers, so it is a shame that when reading the draft law, it remains unclear how much the effects of the proposed law would actually reduce carbon emissions. Impact assessment, which is part of good law preparation, is incomplete.
The aim is to improve the quality of construction by, among other things, tightening the responsibilities of the main contractor and the main designer of the construction project - however, without taking into account that the majority of construction quality problems are related to the old building stock and not to new construction, which the proposed regulation would mostly affect.
The law also does not fix, for example, municipalities' problems in finding money to repair their aging building stock in order to get rid of indoor air problems. Even those who support the tightening of construction responsibilities see that the tightening must not lead to an increase in the costs of construction and housing. An impact assessment was needed for the effects of the liability regulation presented in the statements.
The municipalities' statements show concern about increasing obligations and a lack of resources to handle the numerous new tasks that will come under the law. For example, the growing reporting obligations related to zoning would require additional investments from the municipalities, as would investments in digitalization. Municipalities are also not enthusiastic about the idea of expanding ELY centers' appeal rights, which were reduced during the Sipilä government.
The trend is climate change and digitalization, although refinement is still needed
Is there anything good in the bill?
It is clear that, for example, the fight against climate change and digitization must be provided in the new law in a completely different way than the current law does. Many commenters completely agree with this, and the bill seeks to promote these goals.
However, climate change is often curbed specifically by zoning better than by extending the climate assessment obligation not only to new buildings but also to renovation construction sites for which it is not suitable.
Promoting digitalization alone is not enough to streamline processes, if the law otherwise stiffens and prolongs planning.
The need for change is therefore obvious and the goals are important, which is why it is worth continuing to modify the bill - taking the criticism into account.
The article was prepared by legal trainee Liisa Salmela and director of economic affairs Anu Kärkkäinen from Rakennusteollisuus RT.
"editing should continue - taking criticism into account". Peesa.