The hamster wants associations to be able to participate more in the building permit process again

Brno - The Public Defender of Rights Stanislav Křeček would welcome it if civic associations could once again become more involved in the permitting process for construction. Since 2018, associations have been unable to participate in a significant portion of the permitting processes according to the building law. This could change thanks to the proposed law on a unified environmental opinion, which also includes amendments to the law on the protection of nature and the countryside. The ombudsman informed about this today on his website.

Křeček had previously commented on this proposal, but ultimately a version that does not account for greater public participation was brought before the Chamber for discussion. Therefore, the ombudsman approached members of the parliamentary committee for the environment and the committee for public administration and regional development, highlighting that associations can be beneficial in permitting processes.

"They can inform the building authority with valuable information in the area of environmental protection in the given locality. Thanks to their proposals, the resulting constructions can be more environmentally friendly," believes the ombudsman. According to him, associations that intentionally seek to delay or obstruct the discussion of specific construction projects are rather exceptions. "In my experience, members of associations are, in most cases, local residents who raise objections against investment plans that could negatively affect the quality of the environment in which they live," he added in a letter to the MPs.

In the past, a group of senators challenged the limitation of associations' participation in the law on the protection of nature and the countryside before the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court ruled in February 2021 that the contested part of the law is not in conflict with the Constitution. However, seven out of fifteen judges expressed a so-called dissenting opinion. Among other things, they believed that the disputed provision of the law does not fulfill what lawmakers intended, namely to expedite territorial and building procedures.

According to the ombudsman, lawmakers could prevent intentional obstruction in territorial and building procedures and the subsequent prolongation of the entire permitting process in ways other than the current significant limitations on public participation. One variant is, for example, a condition that it can only be an association with a local connection to the given proceedings.