Due diligence in construction, demolition, and land measures

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! I shall actually be brief in this matter, for it is a unanimous committee that stands behind the government's proposal for amendments to the Planning and Building Act, and we Social Democrats move for approval of the proposal in CU2.

However, some criticism has been voiced by some referral bodies expressing concern that this could prolong the planning work. We do not quite believe that, however, but we will of course closely monitor the developments given the changes that will occur.

Mr. Speaker! I would like once again to express my support for the committee's proposal in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The matter we are debating today concerns the government's proposal for amendments to the Planning and Building Act regarding requirements for diligence. The legislative changes mean that it is clarified that construction, demolition, and land measures shall be planned and carried out with diligence. This is achieved by introducing a general diligence requirement in the Planning and Building Act.

The purpose of the legislative changes is, among other things, to limit the risk of people or property being harmed. This is, of course, something we think is very good and support, but it is nothing new. In Boverket's building regulations, BBR, there is already a duty of care today. This disappears when the building regulations are replaced with others next year, and therefore a duty of care is now introduced instead in the Planning and Building Act, PBL. The legislative change that we are debating today is therefore not intended to change anything but should only be seen as a relocation of the legal text.

The reason for the Green Party's reservation is therefore not that we want to remove the due diligence requirement that exists, but we believe it is insufficient. Now that time is being spent moving the legal text to PBL, one should take the opportunity to sharpen it. It is not just us, but it is something that Sveriges Arkitekter has also raised in their referral response regarding the amendment that the government proposes today.

Reading the various referral responses regarding Boverket's new building rules, one can see that other referral bodies also point out that it is disadvantageous to change building rules incrementally and that resource efficiency and climate are not sufficiently addressed in the new building rules to be introduced next year. The requirement for due diligence in the implementation of construction, demolition, and land measures that is now being introduced should therefore, for several reasons, go further than what the government has proposed. We believe that the requirements should also cover due diligence in resource use and due diligence regarding cultural and natural values.

Responsibility in construction, demolition, and land measures

Mr. Speaker! Boverket assesses in its report Mapping of errors, deficiencies and damages within the construction sector that the total property economic costs for measures and costs linked to inefficient resource use amount to between 59 and 73 billion kronor per year. This can, for example, involve ordering the wrong product or ordering more than one needs, for safety's sake. Then one throws away usable materials, because it is simply easiest.

Large parts of the construction industry are today on the threshold of changing working methods to reduce the large environmental and climate impact that arises during various construction projects, and it is, for example, very urgent to reduce the amount of waste that arises from the construction sector. Today, the construction industry accounts for approximately twice as much waste as all the household waste we produce every year in Sweden.

In order for the climate impact to be reduced and resource use to become more efficient, construction projects, from planning to completion, need to be permeated by circular perspectives. Even if a certain amount of waste can be difficult to avoid, materials, for example, need to be reused to a greater extent, and this needs to be reflected in the legislation that we develop.

Introducing a requirement for due diligence in resource use would contribute to reducing the entire construction and civil engineering industry's climate impact as well as its large resource use. It could also contribute to Sweden achieving the goals in the EU's binding climate legislation as well as the goals in the government's own climate action plan.

The planning and building regulations currently lack provisions regarding special care for cultural and natural values. At the same time, irreplaceable cultural values often disappear entirely for no reason, not least during renovations. I believe that most of us in here are aware of cases where old, architect-designed kitchens were replaced with new ones from Ikea, but it can also be a matter of carelessness leading to damage to or in an existing building. This could, for example, involve installations where facades are damaged or that windows or older doors are damaged and need to be repaired or replaced. It could also involve damage to interior and floors or careless demolition where other parts of the house are damaged.

In many cases, perhaps old details of high quality need to be replaced with new and cheap. Sweden has for centuries had a large and important craft tradition. Professional craftsmen have built houses and designed details that have been loved by many people. Fine carpenters have produced doors for one property at a time, and blacksmiths have forged unique railings and signs. All of this can be lost through carelessness and negligence.

Natural values also risk being damaged by negligence. Certain measures, for example excavation, can cause direct damage to natural values, which can then lose characteristics such as favoring biodiversity or leading and managing water. In many construction projects, for example, screens are set up around trees worthy of protection so that machines do not drive over and destroy them, while at the same time heavy loaders are operated or mass handling is laid out, which can destroy underlying roots or the possibility of water supply.

Replacing large trees can cost millions, but in many cases, it is irreplaceable values that are lost when older trees are destroyed. Even trees that bloom or provide berries or fruit can, in addition to the obvious economic value, have great and conservation-worthy significance for both animals and humans. They can have difficulty recovering and be difficult to replace after the ground where they grow has been churned up.

Careless earthworks or large areas for mass handling can, in combination with increased heavy rainfall, also have serious consequences for both builders and neighboring properties, which can be affected by both landslides and flooding when the water absorption capacity changes. It is also something we have already seen in some cases.

Mr. Speaker! It can be argued that the existing rules in PBL are sufficient, but I believe that most of us can come up with several examples where attention has been drawn to cases where no sufficient due diligence assessment was made to ensure that the fundamental values can be protected. There are many consultation responses regarding the need for additional requirements on due diligence, not least when it concerns Boverket's new building regulations.

This would have been a good opportunity to tighten the legislation. We live in a time when we need to tighten the requirements on the management of nature and climate, and we do not have time not to make improvements at all times when there are opportunities to do so.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the Green Party's reservation in the report regarding the scope of the due diligence requirement.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In the chamber today, we have a government proposition on changes to the PBL on the table. It concerns the requirement for diligence in construction, demolition, and ground measures and on clarifying the diligence requirement and including it explicitly in the Planning and Building Act, PBL. Boverket shall at a later stage produce specific regulations with clarifications on the requirement for diligence for the protection of health, i.e., a clarification of the importance of having diligence in construction, demolition, and ground measures. The purpose is to limit the risk of damage to person and property and for discomfort for residents in properties near a site where such modification measures are taking place.

We are all familiar with the issues regarding new construction or changes to properties, in the form of noise disturbances and so on. It is an important part of PBL that we take with us - and also achieve - the clarification that the government puts forward in the bill.

The discussion here today also concerns the cultural-historical value and the environment, as well as the importance of safeguarding this. I can think that PBL today has a regulatory framework that aims to preserve historical, cultural-historical, environmental, and artistic values when changes occur in the form of construction, demolition, and land measures. This protection exists today. One can read it in Chapter 2, Section 6 and in Chapter 8, Section 17. This is also evident in the report that is in this matter. Boverket is also currently carrying out work with the goal of Good Built Environment, where the purpose is that cultural values shall be preserved and they work on creating good conditions for this.

I think it is good that we today have a government - which the Sweden Democrats support - that has cultural values and cultural environments on the agenda in its work. It is something that the Sweden Democrats also follow up on to ensure that we have the conditions to have a good built environment and that we safeguard our cultural values all around Sweden today. It is something that is obviously important in the context when we talk about housing policy and when we talk about the design of our residential areas.

When it comes to resource use, which is also being discussed here, the developer today has an obligation in the control plan to enable material recycling. My view is that people are working quite well with that out in the country and that a different perspective has been gained on circular economy and the conditions for reviewing the waste that occurs in connection with construction. It is something that we follow up on both at a national level and based on the conditions we have in many other areas, both in municipal politics and in the public utility companies around the country.

Overall, I think that the clarification of the PBL presented in the bill provides good conditions for continuing to work on the issues we have discussed here today. It is clear that one can always look at the referral bodies and what position they have on the issue. Here, there are both those who are positively inclined and those who are negatively inclined. Some referral bodies think that one is going too far, which would increase costs, while others think that one could have gone a bit further to create better conditions for implementing what the bill proposes.

I think this bill is, overall, well-balanced regarding safeguarding the interests we have in the form of due diligence requirements in the Planning and Building Act in relation to the increased costs that setting higher requirements might potentially entail. It is about making it possible for us to continue to have fine cultural environments, to safeguard health, and to ensure that the surroundings are not disturbed during new production and reconstruction. It is also about us safeguarding the resources we have in society today.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the government's proposition.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Noria Manouchi (M)

Mr. Speaker! They build the homes we live in and the streets we walk on. They build Sweden. Construction workers, civil engineering workers, builders and engineers should all be able to go home to their families after a shift. That has not always been the case is a tragedy that has struck our country far too many times.

The Government has presented the bill Due Diligence in Construction, Demolition, and Land Measures to introduce requirements for due diligence in the Planning and Building Act. This will clarify what requirements exist and alert more actors to which safety measures need to be taken to meet the requirements. This bill, together with the government's initiative that the Work Environment Authority shall hire more inspectors, carry out more unannounced inspections, and have more safety representatives on site, will make a difference.

The goal is to limit the risk of damage to person and property. I therefore wish to vote in favor of the bill.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time of rapid development and expansion of residential areas, where communities are constantly growing and changing. New buildings are erected, old ones are demolished, and land is prepared for new projects. These processes are fundamental to meeting our growing needs for housing, infrastructure, and commercial premises.

But at the same time as we strive to build the future, we must be aware of our duty to protect both people and the environment during these interventions. Prudence in construction, demolition, and land measures is not just a matter of safety but also an obligation for us.

Safety in construction, demolition, and ground measures

Today we are debating something that should be quite obvious when Sweden has an industry that, if anything, needs more lubricant and not more hurdles. The requirement specified in Boverket's building regulations aims to limit the risk of damage to person and property or to prevent discomfort for, among others, residents and neighbors in connection with construction, demolition, and ground measures. It should be a simple position for everyone that this should be incorporated into PBL.

That we as citizens can build, rebuild and demolish is very important as needs change, both for people and regarding buildings. Sometimes it is simpler to demolish and build new in order to follow today's rules and requirements. When one does that, however, care must be taken, both so that one can reuse materials to the greatest extent possible and so that no one gets hurt or suffers harm in the future.

On a general level, introducing more requirements and a greater scope of vigilance, as the Miljöpartiet wants, would make this more difficult and more expensive in a time when we need lubricant and not more hurdles. These rules do not only apply to large companies but also to individual citizens who, on their own plot, want to change a building in some way according to their needs. Therefore, the rules we have today should simply be transferred over. Everyone knows what is required, and no additional burdens are placed on individuals or companies. Now is not the right time to impose new requirements or costs on the construction industry.

I mean that the bill is sufficient, and I move for its approval.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)