Amendments to the Law on Planning and Construction - not a word about public interest REMARKS

The non-governmental organizations RERI and the Ministry of Space, after yesterday's discussion on the amendments to the Law on Planning and Construction, today came out with remarks and suggestions improvement of the Law. As they state, the Law is focused on the interests of investors and facilitating access to building permits.

They state that the favoring of private interest to the detriment of the public can be seen in the proposal that only the investor is recognized as a party in the process of issuing a building permit. "This decision is unconstitutional, because in the process of issuing building permits there must be room for the protection of the public interest and other parties, such as citizens, the prosecution and other public institutions - how is it possible that someone could think of interpreting the term party in such a restrictive way procedure?", asks Mirko Popović from the organization RERI.

These benefits are planned, among other things, through amendments to the Law through the digital platform E-space.

"This means that the investor it is easier and faster to obtain a building permit, let's say, a five-story building on a plot where the current plan allows a building of up to three stories," says urban planner Božena Stojić from the Ministry of Space organization.

Mirko Popović from the RERI organization adds that the consequence of this use of E-space is the reduction of space for citizen participation in decision-making. He also reminds that these organizations were last year reacted to the illegal termination of the public debate on E-space.

While on the one hand State Secretary Damnjanović claims that it is necessary to enable a faster and easier procedure and conditions for investors, whereby all "repressive provisions" should be removed from the Law, these organizations propose a set of recommendations for improving public participation in the development of plans.

The proposal is to introduce more opportunities for public participation, as well as more forms of participation. Also, that public inspections and public hearings be held outside working hours; that decisions of the Planning Commission are made publicly; and to be introduced a summary of the plan which is published with the plan to make it easier for the public to understand the plans. It is especially important that all documents created during the development of plans are publicly available.

Another amendment to the law is particularly interesting, namely the introduction of the chief state urban planner, spatial planning agency and state planning commission. In their objections, the organizations state that the introduction of new bodies is not bad in itself, but that it is necessary to clarify what is under whose jurisdiction.

"When we don't have a clear division of responsibilities, there is room for something to be over-controlled and something not, and no one is held responsible for it. Our proposal is to expand the powers of the urban planning inspector, so that he can control the work of the planning commissions. Also, we must have a precise criterion for the selection of Commission members, and not, as is currently stated in the Law, that they are reputable experts", says Stojić.

The current legal practice is such that the chief city planner is also the president of the Commission for Plans, which means that he can initiate the development of plans and create conceptual solutions. After that, the plan goes to the expert committee, headed by him again. The same commission rejects public objections and sends the plan for adoption. The organization's proposal is that the chief city planner cannot be a member of the Planning Commission.

The RERI organization points out that this Act must be harmonized with the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, and it is recommended not to miss this opportunity to harmonize these laws.

Last, but not least, the organizations point out that the amendments to the law foresee changes in the field of plan compliance that are not acceptable, because they have far-reaching consequences on the planning system and the space itself. The proposed alignment of plans leaves room for interpretation, so it can be considered that construction can be done in cities without adopted strategic plans such as the General Urban Plan (GUP). Additionally, the Spatial Plan of Special Purpose Areas would become an even more frequently used tool for spatial interventions carried out by the Government on the basis of vaguely established interests of the Republic of Serbia.