A new regulatory framework for building permits

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Should one simplify or complicate things for ordinary people in Sweden? That is where the difference in Swedish politics today lies. Today we are debating a reform that many Swedes have waited a long time for. It is a reform that is about restoring common sense, trust, and decisiveness in Swedish construction policy.

The proposal A new regulatory framework for building permits is more than a technical change. It is a break from years of bureaucratic complications, unreasonable processing times, and unnecessary costs for ordinary people. How reasonable is it, really, Madam Speaker, that in Sweden one still has to apply for a building permit to install a skylight in one's own roof or wait for months for a decision to build a small patio or a carport or change the facade color on one's own house – furthermore at a cost that is far from reasonable or insignificant in context?

Our government has now presented a proposal that truly simplifies and shows trust in people. It makes it easier to build, cheaper to plan and faster to implement.

With the new rules, a family can build an extension to their house of up to 30 square meters without a building permit, which is twice as much as today. For many, it means that one can create a couple of extra bedrooms, a home office, or perhaps a multi-generational home without having to pay tens of thousands of kronor in fees and wait for a decision from the building committee. It is a concrete improvement in people's everyday lives.

Facade changes also become permit-free. This means in practice that those who want to change the roof, repaint the facade, install skylights or install solar panels no longer need to wait for months for a building permit. It becomes free to do it directly as long as one follows the technical rules. It saves both time and money for the individual, and it makes it easier for households to energy-efficientize their homes. Many have hesitated to add insulation and change windows precisely because of the cumbersome building permit process, and now that obstacle finally disappears.

Madam Speaker! Perhaps the most significant change concerns our outbuildings in the countryside. By outbuildings, buildings used in business activities related to fishing or agriculture or forestry, such as barns, log cabins, machine sheds, warehouses and so on, are meant. They are already constructed today without a building permit but have previously been limited by the fact that any other new activity requires a building permit for the building.

Today, thousands of old barns, log cabins, and warehouses stand empty because the rules have made it complicated to use them for something new. Now, it will be possible to convert these existing buildings into housing or business premises completely without expensive building permits and bureaucratic requirements.

This is an enormous opportunity for our countryside. An empty shed can now become a guesthouse, a residence, a farm office, a café, or a workshop, entirely without having to go through a long and expensive building permit process. The only requirement is that the building is located outside the detailed development plan and that it meets basic technical requirements.

For our countryside, this means new life. New homes can emerge in already existing buildings. Small business owners get the opportunity to start businesses at home on the farm. Young families can settle in the areas where they grew up. This is policy that strengthens Sweden, from the beautiful red and white farms in Småland to the small villages in Norrland.

At the same time, the reporting requirement is also being reduced. Today, one must make a report to the municipalities for almost everything, even things that are completely uncomplicated. This means that hundreds of thousands of small construction projects will no longer burden the municipalities' processing.

For Swedish households, this means lower costs. A common "attefall" notification costs between 7,000 and 15,000 kronor today. It is a significant cost for the average Swede who just wants a little extra space. From December 1 of this year, the cost will be nothing at all. One will be able to build up to 30 square meters within a detailedly planned area and 50 square meters outside a detailedly planned area in a building completely without notification costs to the municipality. This is real simplification, not just on paper.

Madam Speaker! This reform is a modernization of the entire system. The municipalities will be able to focus on what truly matters, on security, environmental considerations and planning, while ordinary people get more freedom in their everyday lives. It is about balance between freedom and responsibility, about having rules where they are needed but not everywhere. This reform releases people's power to take responsibility themselves, to build, create and develop.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has enormous opportunities. We have space, knowledge, and will. But for far too long, we have had a regulatory framework that has stood in the way. This bill now finally changes this and makes it possible to build and live where one wants. It gives both municipalities and people greater room for maneuver. It benefits the entire country. It strengthens the housing supply, gives new life to the countryside, and reduces bureaucracy. It is a testament to the fact that we can combine simplicity with responsibility and growth with consideration.

The question I asked in my introduction, whether we should simplify or complicate things for ordinary people in Sweden, is clearly answered by this bill. We shall have less bureaucracy and more freedom. We shall have less waiting and more action. We shall have lower costs and more left over for other things. That is how we build the Sweden of the future.

It is, however, far from obvious to achieve this legislation if we look at what the opposition has presented. The Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Centre Party have submitted no fewer than 16 reservations in this matter, 16 points that almost exclusively concern the opposition wanting more bureaucracy and more costs for the individual.

Vänsterpartiet goes the furthest and wants to reject everything. Several have proposed reporting requirements and expanded building permits. One can observe that the opposition's proposals are fragmented. As a voter, one does not know what one actually gets if these are to rule, more than that it will result in more bureaucracy and fewer simplifications for ordinary people. If, on the other hand, one wants continued simplification and eventually also permit-exempt Sverigehus, it is with those of us who stand behind the bill that one should cast their vote in the upcoming election.

I move for the approval of the bill A new regulatory framework for building permits and the rejection of the reservations.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservations 3 and 5 in the committee's report CU2.

Before I proceed to the report itself, I must express my surprise that our Minister for Housing is not even present in today's debate on a new regulatory framework for building permits. The Minister has had a high level of publicity surrounding this bill since he presented it at a press conference in the spring and in a debate article in Aftonbladet on August 25 last summer. There are parts of the bill that I would have gladly debated with the Minister for Housing specifically, but unfortunately, he is conspicuously absent from today's debate.

Regarding the government's proposal for a new regulatory framework for building permits, there are good proposals that we Social Democrats also stand behind. But there are also large parts that are really bad and ill-considered.

For us Social Democrats, it is a self-evident starting point that social construction processes shall be characterized by order and clarity. The individual's interest in both freedom of action as well as predictability and protection against significant risks must be safeguarded, while at the same time the public interest of good social planning is upheld. It should be easy for the individual to do right and difficult to do wrong. The public must also be able to maintain a democratic control. It is constantly about complex trade-offs that are not suitable for sudden shifts and require an empathetic approach to the knowledge and assessments of expert social actors.

For us, it is fundamentally about what social model we want. We Social Democrats do not believe in a society where each individual is left alone to navigate among rules and risks, but in a society where we take a collective responsibility to ensure that everything works for everyone. To tear down structures for order and oversight in the belief that freedom increases is a fundamental misunderstanding. Freedom does not increase in chaos. It grows in security and in the knowledge that rules apply equally to everyone.

We Social Democrats welcome that the government is moving forward with the commission's proposal that the requirement for building permits shall only be formulated in law, which, among other things, means that municipalities cannot decide on permit requirements in detailed development plans and area regulations. We are also positive about the proposal which means that a smaller circle of affected neighbors and property owners shall be notified in permit or notification cases, while the requirement for public notice remains.

We do, however, reject the part of the proposal which implies that the known tenants' organization shall no longer be included in the circle that is to receive information. This entails a significant risk that tenants in neighboring properties will in practice be treated differently, for example, than housing cooperative owners in the neighborhood.

The bill that the government is now presenting must, however, be seen as part of a whole. In the bill, the government announces that the reporting requirement in the Planning and Building Ordinance for what we in everyday speech call "attefall" measures shall be abolished. We Social Democrats note that the criticism from the referral bodies is massive. Among the critical referral bodies, Villaägarna, Bostadsrätterna, Boverket, Sveriges arkitekter, KTH, county administrative boards, municipalities – both blue and red – the Armed Forces, the Land and Environment Courts, Skatteverket, and several others can be mentioned.

A broad removal of the reporting obligation entails obvious risks that the individual can very easily make a mistake and subsequently suffer great negative consequences. The 7,500 SEK that previous speakers mentioned as a cost can initially become a million-kronor cost if one needs to demolish an attefall house that is a residential house and which today can cost 1.5 million to construct with all connections. It is a significant increase in cost compared to being able to do it right from the start. The economic costs can be large, but it also concerns the health risks. Ultimately, it can be a matter of life or death.

We mean that a preliminary review in the form of a notification requirement for housing is always necessary based on the requirements for load-bearing capacity, fire protection and technical construction in general, accessibility and noise, as well as the dimensioning of water and sewage.

The removal of the reporting requirement admittedly results in a smaller burden initially by reducing the number of reporting cases for the municipalities to handle. But in the long run, we Social Democrats, in line with many other referral bodies, argue that such a change instead results in a greater burden for the municipalities. Since the fee-based financing disappears, taxpayers must pay for there to be staff who can perform the supervision work in retrospect. Several municipalities also argue that the supervision work is more resource-intensive than the current system. Where is the gain in all this? It must be better to receive notice before errors are made than for them to come to light in a supervision when the errors have already been made.

To this, it is somewhat of a chimera that the reporting obligation is removed. Technical measures such as ventilation, water and sewage installations, and fire protection remain subject to reporting, which is regulated in the PBF. The total fee for the individual remains significant when constructing a residence through new construction of a complementary residential building or extension and modification. But the authorities' ability to protect both the individual's interest and the public interest is worsened, for example, through uncontrolled densification in already densely built-up areas. Additionally, the important work of municipalities and state authorities to perform their duties and maintain order and tidiness in the community construction process is worsened and made more expensive.

In light of the massive criticism, we Social Democrats want the government not to remove the reporting obligation in the Planning and Building Ordinance. Unfortunately, that question is not on the table today, but it is connected to the proposal we are discussing today.

When the Minister for Housing has argued for the removal of the reporting obligation, he argues that municipal officials should relinquish some of their power and let individuals decide more for themselves. See the debate article in Aftonbladet.

If one truly believes that Sweden's building permit officials are abusers of power who want to put spokes in people's wheels, then one has very little contact with reality. If an individual, for example, receives a negative decision from the municipality, it may be because the building is perhaps located too close to another building for fire safety reasons. These are details regarding various regulations that still apply, even if the notification requirement is removed. I doubt that everyone participating in this debate, including myself, knows all the details that apply to prevent the spread of fire.

A notification before construction helps the individual property owner do things right from the start. It must be best – or isn't it? As I have said before; it can ultimately be a matter of life or death if fires spread in an uncontrolled system where properties have been built without knowing how close they can stand. There are different rules, I have learned – unfortunately. I came late to this – one has to take what one can get.

A common one-liner in politics – I myself have used it – is usually that it should be easy to do the right thing. But with the removal of the reporting obligation, it instead becomes easy to do the wrong thing. That should be Expressens headline tomorrow: Easy to do wrong.

In response to the Minister for Housing's debate article last summer, Annie Östlund, a Center Party municipal councilor in Huddinge responsible for building permits and supervision, wrote that occupancy permits were denied for 68 percent of the attefallshus in Huddinge in 2023 because they did not comply with legal requirements. 68 percent would have been incorrectly built if there had not been a reporting requirement so that they could be inspected in advance.

The risks are therefore very great that incorrect buildings are constructed, and it is the individual who has to bear the entire risk, which Villaägarnas Riksförbund has also clearly pointed out in its referral critique.

In addition to the risks for individuals, several authorities and industry organizations have highlighted serious deficiencies in the changes being proposed.

For example, Svenskt Vatten submitted a letter late in our decision-making process because they had not been a referral body, which in itself is very concerning. Svenskt Vatten pointed out that when water and sewage organizations are not informed about new buildings or that extensions are being made, the possibilities to dimension the capacity in the water and sewage facilities are also impaired. For a correct extraction of water and sewage fees to occur, it is not enough that a water and sewage installation is made, but knowledge is also required that a building or extension has been constructed in order to be able to calculate the utility of the water and sewage service.

The Swedish Tax Agency points out that the government's proposal leads to deteriorated register quality in the property assessment register. This can lead to difficulties for tax deductions, insurance matters, lending, sales, and urban planning.

These are just some of all the serious deficiencies that 44 of 62 referral bodies point out without receiving any support from the government. One wonders how the government cannot take in the massive criticism that has been presented. That question I would have liked to ask the Minister for Housing, but he still shines with his absence.

We Social Democrats further note that the government's proposal means that neighbors may face different sets of rules for what can be constructed without a building permit. Building permit rules should be uniform and easy to understand.

For example, in my own residential area, one neighbor can build a 30 square meter attefallshus while another neighbor, a couple of hundred meters away, can build 50 square meters. The neighbor right next to that neighbor can build only 25 square meters because the main building is so small on that property.

It depends on that the government proposes that different sized buildings are allowed depending on whether it concerns a detailed plan area or a non-detailed plan area and that an attefallshus may not be larger than the main building. It is a very unfortunate development that implies a departure from previous decisions in legislative matters in the area where the principle of designing easy-to-understand and uniform regulations has been respected.

These proposals have also received extensive criticism from, among others, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, which points out exactly the problem I described, namely that non-detailed-planned land can exist in areas with continuous development. We Social Democrats therefore want a spatially differentiated regulatory framework to be investigated from an urban and rural perspective. SKR has presented a proposal that is interesting from that perspective and which should be investigated further. The government's proposal does not solve that issue but will only complicate the regulatory framework further and once again increase the risk of the individual making a mistake.

The proposition entails, regardless of the changes proposed here, extensive changes in a very complex regulatory framework. The consequences for both individuals and the public are difficult to foresee, and we have reason to expect even unexpected effects. The legislation should therefore be followed up at a review point after five years.

Mr. Speaker! The Government often speaks about small houses and garden cities and their qualities. Finally, I would therefore like to repeat what one of many architects I have spoken with ahead of today's debate has said.

The districts that we hold in highest regard today, dense villa housing with elements of terraced houses and smaller multi-family dwellings, the garden city with established greenery, are all the result of strict urban planning: a strong vision from an architect together with a municipality that has drawn clear and unconditional boundaries for how the district shall emerge, what streetscapes it shall have, how the street shall wind forward and how the houses shall relate to the same. To tear up the regulatory framework that quality-assures this is not only to make it impossible for more districts to achieve this character in the future, but it will also distort the cultural heritage that we visit and are inspired by today.

I would like to once again move for approval of reservations 3 and 5 in the committee's report.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring (S) agreed.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that it is not easy to be a Social Democrat and advocate for more bureaucracy today when we are implementing one of the greatest reliefs in living memory, I believe, when it comes to construction and especially construction on one's own plot.

One thing I react to in Leif Nysmeds' speech is that people are happy to talk about expensive and troublesome solutions when it comes to attefallshus. But most attefallshus are actually quite simple buildings, which usually have not cost particularly much to build.

Then one can reflect on the reporting obligation. It functions today as a stealth tax on the residents. Such a report costs between 7,000 and 15,000. This can hardly be justified based on the work effort when it concerns the simple attefall houses.

I have personally built an attefallshus on my plot. It is a simple wooden building, which remains standing for the time being. I can guarantee that it does not pose any fire risk. It stands far from other buildings and at a distance of 4 ½ meters and a bit more to the neighbor's plot.

That one should pay between 7,000 and 15,000 actually constitutes one of the most expensive costs during construction. I think that is quite unreasonable. Therefore, I am glad that we are finally reaching the finish line with this bill.

I want to ask Leif Nysmed whether it is really reasonable to incur a cost between 7,000 and 15,000 for the individual homeowner to be allowed to build a shed or a guest cottage on their own plot.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! The member asks if that cost is reasonable, because he has built correctly. As I also noted, there are very many who submit incorrect reports today. This means that almost 70 percent would have built incorrectly. Of course, 30 percent would have built correctly. There are many who can, but there are also many who do not know all the rules in this regard.

I think it is good that one receives a notification before construction that everything is in order and that everything has been considered, especially for fire safety reasons. I do not know how large the member's plot is. There might be a lot of space there. But many plots are significantly smaller and more cramped. If a building, regardless of whether it is cheap or expensive, is placed too close to another, one risks, for example, the spread of fire.

It is good to know that one should not place the building so close before actually doing so, even if it is a cheap building. I believe, however, that moving or demolishing a building will be just as expensive as the 7,000–15,000 kronor that the member is bringing up here. I believe that, on the whole, it is better to find out things in advance than to have to take measures afterwards. Remedial measures are more expensive than advance notices.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is easy to throw around statistics about what is incorrect. My application to build an attefallshus was also incorrect according to the municipality because one piece of information was missing when I first submitted it. It had no significance whatsoever for the building itself. I believe that the vast majority of so-called incorrect applications are about having missed filling in one piece of information, just as I had done.

At the same time as people worry about it being poorly built and a lot of water and sewage being connected, the Social Democrats advocate for the forced mixing of villa areas. They do not call it forced mixing, but it is quite clear that all areas should become more mixed, which is to be achieved by building multi-family houses in secure villa neighborhoods. And at the same time, they want to legislate that refugees may not be placed in areas of exclusion. In practice, they want to build multi-family houses in villa areas where they will then force the municipality to place refugees.

I want to ask Leif Nysmed: If one cannot place so many attefallshus in certain areas because it causes problems regarding water and sewage, as we heard earlier, what says that it would be much easier to place a multi-family house in a villa area? Would that not involve significantly larger problems for municipalities to handle, especially when it comes to water, since there is significantly more water from multi-family houses than because some individual villa owner has built a guest cottage on the plot?

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think the member is mixing in some other issues and claiming things that are not true. But I still want to answer it a little bit.

Our proposals are many times that we should try to mix the vulnerable areas with both semi-detached houses and condominiums, primarily to achieve a diversity in those areas. Then I know that, for example, Kombohusen has proposals for terraced houses and semi-detached houses that can be built. One could certainly include those in a villa area as well, without any major impact on the area, in terms of cultural heritage and so on, as it is developed. It could blend in quite well with the environment.

But if it can work, it is something that one tries out, right? You have a detailed plan that you prepare and look at whether it fits in, works, and corresponds. There is a difference from the proposal that you are putting forward, where one does not pre-test anything. Is it appropriate to have this, for example, from the perspective of water and sewage? Can the area handle that strain or not? That is what one pre-tests.

You propose that nothing should be pre-tested. In that case, the rest of the water collective, which actually reports and is registered to pay fees, will have to bear the cost that arises. In your proposals, you shift the costs onto the neighbors instead.

I think we should nuance the debate. I would rather discuss and debate this proposal than participate in other pseudo-debates.

(Applause)

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Since the Speaker is from Östergötland, I intend to begin my speech with a moralizing story from Mjölby. In the spring of 2015, the visual artist Bernth Uhno created big headlines in the media and left upset municipal politicians in his wake. What stirred emotions, however, was not some provocative work of art, such as desecrations of the Swedish flag, depictions of Jesus as homosexual, or even a cartoon of a roundabout dog.

The uproar and agitation concerned Bernth Uhno's choice of color for his villa in Skänninge in Mjölby municipality. When Bernth Uhno bought the villa, the house had, according to SVT, stood uninhabited since 1981, and the color was sun-bleached in various yellow shades. After the house was repainted, the yellow color remained but was mixed with a white shade at the bottom and a red shade at the top. The house's walls went from red to yellow to white, tone on tone.

The building antiquarian of Mjölby municipality described this radical coloring for the town as foreign to Skänninge. The Center Party chairman of the building and rescue committee went even further and resolutely stated: "That coloring is not Swedish." Thereafter, a unanimous committee decided that the house needed to be repainted in one of the colors pre-approved by Mjölby municipality.

Mr. Speaker! In April 2023, Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson appointed the Productivity Commission, whose mandate was to analyze what affects productivity growth in Sweden. The Commission submitted its partial report one year later, in April 2024, and its final report in October this year.

In both the partial report and the final report, the construction and housing market is highlighted as an area where regulatory simplifications have the potential to contribute to increased productivity, to such an extent that it is the main focus of the commission's first partial report. It concerns everything from more liberal land use and an unregulated rental market to regulatory simplifications regarding new construction and conversions. These are changes that are necessary if Sweden as a country is to be able to continue to develop, get more people into work, and secure the income for our common welfare.

Mr. Speaker! The changes we will vote through today are based on individual freedom, property rights, and the desire to take responsibility for one's property. Families with children will be given the opportunity to expand their homes instead of moving when the family grows. The choice of color will be a matter for the homeowner and not for the municipality. Thanks to a series of regulatory relaxations, existing properties will be able to contain more housing. This will make it easier for young people who are about to start working or start a family.

Mr. Speaker! One can also say that it is a first step in the regulatory simplifications that the Productivity Commission has pointed out as necessary for housing and construction. The proposals mean that the number of measures that can be taken without requirements for building permits and that can be allowed without hindrance in detailed plans or area regulations are expanded. This means that we both create the possibility for more housing and increase property owners' opportunities to decide how a property shall be used and developed.

The legislative changes also mean that the permit requirement will become area-differentiated. Requirements for permits will remain within areas that are of national interest for the total defense. Simplifications of regulations must not compromise the society's defense capability. Building permits will also be required within areas of special cultural-historical value. We are increasing transparency and predictability, while the protection for particularly valuable buildings remains.

Mr. Speaker! Among the regulatory simplifications that are now being implemented, there are primarily two tracks that I want to mention in particular.

The first thing is that it will become easier to create so-called complementary housing. We are removing the notification requirement for attefall houses and enabling houses up to 50 square meters in size in areas not subject to a detailed development plan. We are increasing the possibility of making extensions; we are increasing the limit from 15 square meters to 30 square meters. We are removing the notification requirement to furnish an additional residence and also removing the requirement for a building permit to, for example, install an extra exterior door.

This will make it possible for more hard-working families to rent out a part of their villa or build an attefallshus on the plot to get an extra income and finance their own housing. It is something that is common in our neighboring countries and which has great potential even in Sweden. It will create more smaller and cheaper homes for young people and contribute to increased density, both in residential areas and in the countryside.

Mr. Speaker! The second is a pure freedom reform in the spirit of Gösta Bohman. For one- and two-family houses, the requirement for a building permit for facade changes is abolished. It simplifies things for, for example, repainting, changing facade material, or for that matter, installing a skylight or building a balcony. It will also become easier to put up fences and build terraces. As a homeowner, you should be able to decide for yourself to a greater extent regarding your house without first needing to ask the municipality for permission. It will become, if you will, a lex Bernth Uhno for his tone-on-tone painted house.

Mr. Speaker! We are also implementing several changes to a regulatory framework that previously simply did not function particularly well. Perhaps the clearest example concerns the fact that extensions that are not subject to permit requirements shall be allowed to be carried out simultaneously with the new construction of a single- or two-family house. This means that the bizarre situation that previously existed, where one had to build up walls before the final inspection only to immediately demolish these and finish building the house, will now disappear.

Another important regulatory simplification concerns the fact that building permits can now be granted for converting attics into living space even though it is prohibited in the detailed development plan. This will make it possible for more attic dwellings. A further regulatory simplification is that the owner of a public space, for example the municipality, can now permit changes near the boundary to a public space. This has not been possible previously, which has created unnecessary complications.

Mr. Speaker! A major change is that the system of so-called building notification is now being removed for attefall houses and extensions.

When the attefall reform was implemented in 2014 and it became permit-free to, among other things, construct outbuildings, in cases up to 25 square meters, the building permit was replaced by a building notification to the municipality. This system, which the then Alliance government implemented, had advantages, among others because it gave the municipality knowledge that an attefall house had been constructed on the plot.

Unfortunately, that model did not hold up legally, which has been established in several rulings in the Land and Environment Court of Appeal. There, it has been established that a building application with a commencement order for an attefallshus becomes a non-appealable administrative decision. Consequently, the regulatory framework conflicts with the European Convention, as neighbors who are affected are not given the opportunity to appeal the commencement order.

Thus, we as legislators are also faced with a choice. Shall we completely remove the attefall measures that required a building notification and reintroduce the permit requirement, or shall we instead remove the building notification for these measures? We Moderates believe in freedom and choose the latter. It is regrettable that there are parties in this chamber that instead want to circumvent and remove the possibility of erecting attefall houses.

Mr. Speaker! The changes we are now discussing involve a partially changed mandate for the municipality regarding building permits. The measures that are exempted from the permit requirement have been estimated to constitute 30 to 40 percent of the building committees' permit cases. Resources will therefore be freed up in the building committees. At the same time, the number of inspection cases may increase slightly. The property owner who wishes to do so can continue to apply for a voluntary building permit, for example, if there are questions regarding how the legislation should be interpreted in the individual case. The notification requirement also remains for measures that affect the technical property requirements of a building, for example, regarding ventilation and fire safety.

Mr. Speaker! I began my speech by telling about the yellow house in Skänninge, which went from red to yellow to white. The story did not actually end with a unanimous decision in a municipal committee that Mjölby municipality should approve the color. The decision was appealed to the County Administrative Board, which stated that the property owner actually did not need a building permit to repaint the house from yellow to yellow. But by then, the artist himself had already moved away and sold the house for far above the asking price. That, if anything, is a moral story.

Mr. Speaker! With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now it is a matter of keeping one's tongue in check when one is a substitute and trying to get to grips with a subject where one is not a hundred percent.

Vänsterpartiet naturally welcomes the government's attempt to create a simpler regulatory framework for building permits. But unfortunately, it is no simple task to tackle the complex Planning and Building Act. The result of the government's efforts is a bill that in several parts is not sufficiently elaborated, even though I think several parts are heading in the right direction. Furthermore, important impact assessments are missing regarding both the municipal exercise of authority and our built living environments in general. In short, the proposals mean that many and large changes are to be implemented, additionally on an unreasonably short timeframe.

The objectives of the bill are, according to the government, primarily two: partly to "facilitate that more housing can be created" and partly to "increase property owners' opportunities to decide on how their own property shall be developed." We in Vänsterpartiet, however, like several referral bodies, are extremely doubtful that the new regulatory framework for building permits will lead to any improvements or simplifications whatsoever. We believe instead that it is yet another step in restricting the municipalities' autonomy and a disregard for the municipalities' planning competence.

Mr. Speaker! Let me start from the premise that the government believes that the Planning and Building Act's fundamental requirements for the built environment shall, despite everything, also apply in the future. From that perspective, the now proposed reforms become yet another way for the government to favor villa owners at the expense of most other residents, by abolishing preliminary review and building permit fees. We are, of course, aware that it is not the case that everyone who lives in a villa is a wealthy millionaire who just wants to do things wrong. There are many who would certainly need simpler rules and cheaper permits to be able to build an attefallshus or an additional living space. But the costs for this expanded "freedom for villa owners" will instead come in the form of increased costs for supervision on the part of the municipalities. We have heard about the risks of making mistakes. It can go the other way – there can be things that one does not think of when one is the developer oneself.

Vänsterpartiet is by no means alone in making the assessment that the reduced obligation to provide housing will lead to a significant increase in supervision. What we know for certain is that it will affect all taxpayers, even those who live in rented apartments.

So, 3 million tenants, who are already economically disadvantaged compared to villa owners, will have to pay not only for the villa owners' kitchen renovations with the rot deduction but also for their construction fees in the form of costs for the municipalities' supervision.

Mr. Speaker! It has always been the property owner who, within certain limits, decides on the development of their own property. That freedom is not linked to whether a measure requires a building permit or not.

The big difference with the government's proposal is that the property owner now has to find out themselves – and be held accountable for, as we have heard in the examples from the Socialdemokraterna – whether the measure meets all the requirements of the Planning and Building Act.

One of the problems with the government's proposal regarding the obligation to provide care is that the issue is not sufficiently elaborated. I agree that there is much that I would like to see. At the end of my speech, I will give some examples of things that I am disturbed by in the countryside.

The question is not sufficiently elaborated at the investigation level and therefore does not constitute a sufficient basis for new legislation. The building permit investigation simply had too little time to carry out its work. Vänsterpartiet shares this criticism with a number of referral bodies.

Another problem is that in recent years, a long series of investigations have been commissioned with limited mandates that have dealt with investigating only specific parts of the regulatory framework. This is not the only example.

The fact is that all these minor adjustments that have been made over the years have, in fact, collectively contributed to the building regulations becoming even more complex and convoluted. It has rather complicated than simplified the application. This is something that the Building Permit Inquiry also noted.

We mean that changes must be made more collectively than has been the case so far and therefore consider that the government should instead return with a completely new proposition with a more thoroughly worked-out review of the entire building regulations. Such a proposition should also contain a full impact assessment, something that is missing in the proposition we are discussing today.

Vänsterpartiet wants to particularly highlight a couple of the many areas where serious impact assessments are lacking. These concern the environment, climate, accessibility, and cultural environment. We believe that this is serious, because changes in the Planning and Building Act have far-reaching effects for society's ecological, social, and legal structures.

Even when it comes to accessibility, consequence analyses are missing. Like several referral bodies, Vänsterpartiet argues that it requires special competence to design buildings in an accessible way and that it is therefore likely that a reduced preliminary review also leads to reduced compliance with the requirements.

It is not the first regressive proposal that this government has put forward regarding accessibility. Just recently, it was about worsening the accessibility in student housing. Vänsterpartiet does not believe that worsening conditions for people with disabilities belong in a modern society such as Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Before I proceed to my motion regarding our reservation, I would like to take an example that many do not think about. There are villages along rivers and lakes in the small municipalities that soon will not have a population to do what is required of a municipality. We lack people.

Sometimes one would like to give a medal to everyone who builds anything at all. There are many rules that put a stop to it, whether it is the shore protection or something else.

Arjeplog has 8,727 lakes but only 2,578 inhabitants. They have access to 3.4 lakes per inhabitant. Still, it is difficult to build. Sometimes one would almost wish that anyone who builds anything at all should receive a medal. We lack people up there.

Mr. Speaker! I now come to our reservation. In the Left Party's follow-up motion, we have requested that the Riksdag should, in the first instance, reject the proposition A new regulatory framework for building permits and issue a notice to the government to return with a better elaborated proposition.

Secondly, if the proposals are voted through despite everything, we believe that the date for entry into force should be postponed to July 1, 2026. This is so that the municipalities, affected authorities, and other actors will have a reasonable amount of time and a chance to manage the challenges that the proposal entails. I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating CU2 A new regulatory framework for building permits. It is an important reform that takes decisive steps towards a simpler, more efficient and more purposeful system for building permits. It is a reform that we Christian Democrats are happy that we can realize for all property owners.

Sweden faces major challenges regarding housing construction. The housing shortage is acute in many parts of the country, and complicated rules have for too long prevented people from developing their homes and properties. With this new regulatory framework, we are changing that. We are giving property owners greater freedom to decide over their own property.

We facilitate more housing, and we create better conditions for growth and development, especially in rural areas. We give the municipalities the opportunity to devote their time and effort to the larger plans, as this change, according to calculations, results in 40 percent fewer cases for the building committees.

We have probably all met and spoken with people who have house dreams. I met a young family in Kungsbacka, a family with small children who dreamed of extending their house to provide space for an extra room for their own child. But they got stuck in a thicket of regulations and building permit processes.

Bureaucracy had caused their dream to be delayed for over a year, with higher costs and frustration as a result. It is precisely that type of obstacle that we are now tearing down with this new regulatory framework. For us Christian Democrats, it is about giving people the freedom to shape their lives and their homes without unnecessary hassle.

We know that seven out of ten want to live in owner-occupied housing. But on the other hand, they do not want to get caught in the clutches of bureaucracy when they want to adapt their home for their needs. Therefore, this reform is important.

Let me highlight some of the central changes that we Christian Democrats see as particularly valuable:

Firstly, the requirement for building permits is abolished for more and larger measures in areas without a detailed development plan. This means that people can expand their homes, convert attics, or add outbuildings without unnecessary bureaucracy as long as it does not affect particularly valuable areas or national interests such as total defense. It is a step towards more freedom for the individual and the family, values that are very close to the hearts of us Christian Democrats.

Secondly, the permit requirement becomes more predictable and easy to understand. We remove the requirement for building permits for facade changes on single-family and two-family houses, and we allow building permits for attic interior work even if it conflicts with the detailed plan. Furthermore, the so-called plan-conflicting starting position after 15 years from the detailed plan's implementation time is abolished. These changes reduce unnecessary obstacles and give the municipalities better tools to manage the reality as it is on the ground.

Mr. Speaker! This reform is not just a matter of construction, but it is about strengthening society at its core. By simplifying the regulatory framework, we contribute to more housing for young families, better opportunities for the elderly to adapt their homes, and a more vibrant countryside.

We Christian Democrats have long pushed for such changes, and as the party responsible for infrastructure and housing issues, we are proud to be able to deliver that result today. We have heard it before: It is the largest reform of the building permit regulations in over 15 years, and it enters into force on December 1 this year.

Is everything rosy in the bill? No, and the opposition has views that point to the need for more analyses, more supervision, and other adjustments. I can fundamentally empathize with those views, but we believe that the bill already builds on a solid investigation and referral responses. It balances freedom with responsibility, and we are convinced that evaluations will show positive effects for society. If further improvements are needed, we are open to that, but we will have to take that at another time. It is now that we must act, not delay.

The Christian Democrats therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal in its entirety.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! I address the question to the member because the Minister for Housing is not present. They belong to the same party.

How is it that the government does not listen to its own expert agency Boverket? Why does one not listen to the Land and Environment Courts or the Land and Environment Court of Appeal, which are very well-versed in how it works?

I am thinking, among other things, of what Boverket writes in its consultation response regarding the removal of the notification requirement: ”In line with the Building Permit Investigation (p. 517), Boverket nevertheless considers that housing, generally speaking, should always be pre-tested by society, not least in terms of load-bearing capacity, fire protection and technical construction in general, accessibility and noise, as well as the dimensioning of water and sewage, but also in terms of the general environmental impact that human habitation can entail. According to Boverket, this applies both to the housing that requires a building permit and the housing that today only requires notification.”

I have not read anywhere why these things should not be included in a preliminary inspection but are instead taken in retrospect. How do you measure load-bearing capacity in a finished building? How do you check that the fire protection is correct in a finished building? Should one demolish the walls and check that there is sufficient insulation and that the walls are thick enough? How is one supposed to do this?

Isn't it better to do it right from the beginning, at least regarding housing? I think it is a reasonable objection from Boverket but also from a number of the 44 referral bodies that are actually sawing off this proposal. The risk is ultimately placed on the individual villa owner who has built an attefall house or expanded the permanent building with an extra room for the children. It must be better to have this settled beforehand.

It can cost a few kronor to do it, 7,000–15,000, but it is a small cost in context if you set up a house for 1.5 million, which a residential house costs if you are going to bring in water and sewage, ventilation and everything, compared to if you have to demolish and redo the whole thing.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I think David Josefsson explained the situation itself quite clearly: The reporting obligation does not work in Sweden. Therefore, one must choose between having a part subject to a building permit or completely removing the permit requirement.

I think the government has made a good balance. For the "attefallshouses," as we call them, it was originally intended that it should only be a notification. However, it has become more and more of a building permit process; no one can argue against that. That is how it has become, and therefore it is a fee that increases in cost all the time.

I therefore think it is reasonable to return to what the government at that time actually had in mind in 2014, namely that it should be up to the individual property owner whether they wanted to put up an attefallshus or not, and by removing the requirement for permits and notifications, it becomes up to the individual property owner.

I believe that this is what this member and I have different views on, that is, how much responsibility can be placed on the individual property owner. I think that one can place quite a lot of responsibility on the individual property owner. It is up to the property owner to find out what applies to the property and what one is allowed and not allowed to do when one is going to build something.

I believe that the individual property owner can take that responsibility, and I hope that in the future we will see more people building attefallshus and also supplementing and adapting their own property according to the family's situation. If one needs an extra room, it should be easy to build on so that one does not need to move. There may be other problems with that, for example, that the children have to change schools, which I think is less desirable.

I think that more responsibility should be placed on the individual property owner, and that is what is being done in this bill.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! Larry Söder speaks of complicated rules, and I will return to that.

I want to quote what the Moderates and the Liberals, together with the Christian Democrats, state in the referral response from the City of Stockholm: ”We generally view rule simplifications and reductions of the total regulatory burden positively, not least for private individuals.” That is what you think, yes. ”This memorandum is, however, not about any rule change in itself, but solely about removing the requirement for notification. This means in substance that the review of these matters will be handled significantly later in the process, at the supervision stage rather than at the building permit stage itself.”

So, there has been no change in the regulatory framework itself. What complicated rules is it that you have removed? You have only removed the preliminary review. There are still requirements for load-bearing capacity, fire protection and technical construction in other respects, accessibility and noise, dimensioning of water and sewage and so on.

These requirements still remain – it is just that they are not to be examined in advance. Instead, one must risk having to redo things afterwards. You cannot place your building wherever you want on your plot or however close to another building as you wish from a fire protection standpoint, for example. Those rules are not removed but still remain.

Is it not good that we go through it so that it is clear in advance instead of the individual villa owner having to take the entire financial risk? If a fire were to occur and there is an unfortunate spread because the villa owner has placed things incorrectly, why should the individual villa owner be the one who takes the large risk? Why can we as a society not ensure that it is clear before the property owner begins building? That we take responsibility for the individual and society as a whole does not mean that people are not allowed to build.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! If we assume that there should not only be a reporting requirement but also a permit requirement, it means that the municipality can say no to a garden house today, completely regardless of what the property owner says. It is therefore not about the property owner being right, but about the municipality wanting a right of review and being able to tell the property owners what they can do on their own property.

We want to place that responsibility on the individual property owner. You will have a greater opportunity to do as you wish on your property, but you have laws, rules, and regulations to adhere to. These still remain.

What the member wants is for society to review what the property owner shall do on their own property, and we do not think that. We actually think it is right that the property owner can decide more on their own property. Then, it is no secret that municipal politicians all over Sweden, regardless of party, I would like to assert, do not think this is a good idea, because they think it will become complicated for them. But a change must occur so that we can increase the possibilities to make extensions and so on, so that property owners can use their property for what they desire.

I therefore think that it is good that we make this change, and I think that the bill in its entirety is good. Should there be problems further ahead, the Riksdag can change it if desired.

I think it is good that we place more responsibility on the property owner, because that is what we do: We place the responsibility on the property owner. For a politician to believe that the property owner cannot take that responsibility, I think is a bit presumptuous.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! The advantage or disadvantage of standing quite far down on the speaking list in a debate like this is that one needs to adjust quite a lot in one's pre-written speech.

When one listens to what colleagues have said here in the speaker's chair, one gets two completely different pictures. One side wants to strike a tone that this is a historical freedom reform, while the other side claims that it is essentially a High Chaparral situation where anyone can do anything, and then Robert Aschberg gets several new segments for his TV program Grannfejden.

Let me bring some sense and balance to this debate. It is neither one thing nor the other, I would say. We are dealing with a report that on the surface is about building permits and a lot of technicalities. My colleagues have done their utmost to refer to various quotes, and therefore I want to start by saying that it is I who signs the firm as the spokesperson for my party in these matters.

This is a freedom reform. Is it a historical freedom reform? The answer is no, just as Leif Nysmed said in this speaker's chair. In practice, no far-reaching changes are being made; instead, it is fundamentally about whether the one who builds must report it in advance or can avoid doing so and then accept what comes in hindsight.

We must remember that just because a pre-notified project is built today, it does not mean one knows what is de facto hidden behind the walls and whether the contractor or the one who built it has followed the regulations to the letter. It is a piece of paper that one submits. It is not that there are no incorrectly built structures when it comes to both individual villas and multi-family housing.

Centerpartiet primarily stands behind the government's overall ambition with the new regulatory framework. It is a step in the right direction to simplify and modernize the building permit process in Sweden. The current plan is from 2010 and, according to Boverket, a patchwork that needs a holistic approach. Generally speaking, shorter processing times and clearer rules are needed, as well as a cultural change that involves moving from mistrust to trust. Behind every building permit, there is a human being, a company, and a dream.

Centerpartiet welcomes that the legislative changes shall contribute to more housing, stronger local communities and better opportunities for property owners to develop their plots themselves. That simpler measures can be implemented without a building permit is a sound step towards a smarter regulatory framework. But as usual when the state draws the map of Sweden, there are areas that are easily forgotten, namely those in the countryside. Despite the fact that the Christian Democrats on paper have found a new love for the countryside, they have forgotten precisely the countryside in this report.

Centerpartiet wants to emphasize the importance of the green industries and the small companies. I can tell the Sverigedemokraterna that it is very unfair to lump together the different reservations in this report. Centerpartiet's reservations, which I will now describe, are about improving the proposal, not about removing the simplifications.

Madam Speaker! Firstly, regarding the economic buildings of the green industries, it is unreasonable that operations within agriculture and forestry, horse breeding, fishing, and reindeer husbandry risk being covered by new building permit requirements when they already operate under heavy regulations. A new economic building on a farm is not a problem for society. It is an investment in our food supply and our rural economy. It is an investment in Sweden's independence.

We mean that buildings connected to green industries should continue to be exempt from building permits. The government should therefore return with proposals that clarify this so that business activity in the countryside is not unintentionally stifled. For the Center Party, it is simple: Those who farm, fish, or engage in breeding or equestrian activities should not be met with more bureaucracy but with more trust.

Secondly, in this report, we also address sports facilities and children's freedom of movement. We live in a time where children and young people move less and less and where association life struggles with finances, land issues, and regulations. That the government proposes building permit exemption for sports facilities up to 1,500 square meters is a step forward, but the Center Party wants to go further. We propose 2,000 square meters, which some referral bodies have also written. Why do we do that? Yes, so that movement, health, and community shall not be hindered by square rules and so that it shall be possible to build new sports halls, riding arenas, and activity areas even in smaller municipalities without drowning in building permit processes. It is about the future of public health and about the trust in civil society.

Thirdly, this is also about neighbor consents. There is a simple principle in Swedish administration: when something affects more than one party, it must be documented. Today, neighbor consents for building permits near a property boundary can be given orally or via email. If a conflict arises a few years later, there is therefore no traceability. We want to change that. It is unsustainable. The Center Party therefore proposes that these consents should be archived systematically. It is a small change on paper but a big win for legal certainty. It is about preventing conflicts, not creating more obstacles.

Madam Speaker! I must say that I do not understand those who time and again want to add new layers of control and permits instead of trusting people. There is often talk about Sweden needing more housing, but at the same time, it is made almost impossible for people to contribute to the solution themselves. It should be obvious that the person who owns a property should have the freedom to use it in a reasonable way. If someone wants to build a multi-generational home, a small attefallshus, a rental unit, or a workshop on their own plot, it is not a societal problem. It is a societal resource.

Every time the building permit rules are simplified, the possibility for new housing, more rental apartments, and stronger local communities increases. Every time they are made more difficult, however, doors are closed for young families, elderly parents, and small business owners. The Center Party always wants to strengthen property rights, not erode them. We want to create trust, not more control, and we believe in the simple but powerful idea that people themselves can make wise decisions about their own homes and their own land.

Why should one have to apply for a building permit for small adjustments on one's own property? Why should the state micro-manage where a greenhouse is allowed to stand or if a garage can be extended by one meter? That is not where Sweden's problems lie. The problem lies in that people are not allowed to build at all – not that they are building too much.

A freer Sweden is, therefore, not a lawless land. There are still several thousand pages of regulations that a property owner who wants to expand must comply with. But we want a country where the rules are based on trust, not mistrust. It is precisely that spirit that must be brought into the building permit reform.

Madam Speaker! This report takes several steps forward. It is about simplifications of the building permit process, digitalization, predictability, and more opportunities for citizens to build. But we must also remember what needs to be developed. For the legislation to work in reality, it must reflect it. Reality looks different in Sweden, from the city center in Malmö to the farm in Arjeplog. That is why the Center Party submits its reservations. It is not to slow things down but to improve and ensure that the legislation becomes fair, effective, and usable throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! We stand, as said, behind the government's proposal for a new regulatory framework, but we also want the adjustments that our reservations point out to be addressed. We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 9.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can agree with what Alireza Akhondi pointed out regarding that I, to a somewhat high degree, lumped Centerpartiet together with the opposition when I described them in my speech. Centerpartiet indeed stands behind almost the entire proposition that we have together with the government. They also specifically highlight the horse industry and that they could consider larger sports facilities that are up to 2,000 square meters. These are things that I very well could have imagined and would gladly have sat down and talked about with Centerpartiet.

I could also have imagined talking about an increase in how much one is allowed to build outside of areas with a detailed development plan. There is no real reason why we should have only 30 square meters outside when we have 30 square meters inside. One could imagine having, for example, 60 square meters outside a detailed development plan area.

If we look at the political situation, the Center Party is, in principle, going to the election on a platform of cooperating with the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Social Democrats. Therefore, my question to Alireza Akhondi is whether the Center Party will participate in tearing up this legislation. It is clear that the Social Democrats will do everything they can for a return to building permits for "attefallshus" (small houses), housing in commercial buildings, and so on. Will we, after the election, see a Center Party that, contrary to what is being said here, will work to introduce a number of building permits instead of removing them, which we have worked for for a long time now?

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Mikael Eskilandersson for the question, although I am not sure if it was a question or a proposal. It is obvious that we are moving towards election day.

The Center Party always goes to election on the Center Party's policy. If we were to go to election on another party's policy, we would be in the wrong business, Madam Speaker. I and the Center Party go to election on that our party leader shall be the prime ministerial candidate, and we will work extremely hard to ensure that it becomes so.

Since then, the reality has been that we have not had a party with its own majority for as long as I can remember. This means de facto that one must seek support for one's policies in the Swedish Riksdag in order to get them through.

We have said that we are open to cooperating with six of the parties in the Riksdag. We have excluded the extremes, and Mikael Eskilandersson represents one of these. We have excluded you because we have no shared values. The Sweden Democrats are not a conservative party. You stand for a view on humanity that the Centre Party and I do not stand for.

Therefore, I see no reason to sit at the same table as Mikael Eskilandersson and negotiate. I am happy to sit together with David Josefsson and Larry Söder and negotiate – or with Leif Nysmed for that part, even though we differ here and now on the specific issue.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! One can always discuss what kind of party one is, but it is entirely correct that the Sverigedemokraterna are not a bourgeois party. We are a conservative party, and I would hardly call myself bourgeois.

To return to the question: the Center Party can therefore imagine sitting down and discussing with another party that claims to stand for exactly the same immigration policy as the Sweden Democrats. That is approximately how the Social Democrats express themselves now, namely that there is no difference between the Social Democratic and the Sweden Democrat immigration policy. Then one can ask why the Center Party thinks it is okay to sit down and discuss with a party that does not want to go in the direction that the Center Party wants and where one cannot get through the proposals that the Center Party claims they are enthusiastic about.

There is talk of wanting to go further than just tearing up the legislation that we are currently implementing. In that case, as a representative of the Centre Party, one should consider where one can get their policy through. I believe one might come to the conclusion that one has jumped into a crazy thin [situation/state].

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Member Mikael Eskilandersson is right on one point and wrong on another point.

The Speaker is mistaken in that the Center Party has always stood for free migration. We have always stood up for a responsible migration policy. But that means that we also start from the individual human being. It is here that our respective parties will never be able to find common ground.

I am a liberal. The core of liberalism is to take advantage of people's motivations, see opportunities and let people do their part to realize dreams and contribute to the common good. It is a reality that I know the Sverigedemokraterna do not stand for. They blacken people.

Nearly 5 million of Sweden's population have some foreign connection today. One has to wonder what signals it sends when one repeatedly points out these people as a problem. All available facts show that other cultures and people who come here and contribute and pay taxes are actually an asset for a country like Sweden.

The member is, however, correct that the Center Party wants to go further and implement additional freedom reforms. We will sit down with the parties that want to cooperate with us, excluding the two extremist parties. One of them the member belongs to.

(Applause)

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Madam Speaker! I intend to go back to what the subject is about and not, like others, drift off into other discussions. I think we can stick to the subject. There are members who want to debate other issues after us. We perhaps should respect that.

First and foremost, I do not want to act as a spokesperson for the Center Party. But what I want to say to you, Alireza Akhondi, is the same thing that I also said to Larry Söder, namely that we should also listen to municipal politicians and the criticism that they raise against the proposal.

Why should we listen to them? Well, it is they who have to manage the legislation that we in this chamber decide on. They are out there in reality. It is of course good that we bring their views to the table as well when we make decisions, in contrast to the government which has completely closed its ears and is not listening at all to what the municipalities, the regions, the county administrative boards, or the Land and Environment Courts say. They even ignore the National Board of Housing, their own expert agency.

As I have said, I do not want to make myself a spokesperson for the Center Party members, but I only took an example – a wise one.

However, I had a small thought, Alireza Akhondi. You spoke about how the construction errors would not decrease if we had a pre-inspection because a lot is built with errors today. But that has nothing to do with the pre-inspection, but with cheating. We have construction fraud and an unprofessional market. That is where we need to clean up, but that is a completely different debate. We will not get to that with this.

What I wonder is: Don't you think that construction errors will increase if we do not have a preliminary review, as Boverket proposes? Isn't it good that one has clarified what applies in their application or in their notification, whether it is subject to a building permit or a notification? Then one knows what one must consider and live up to before proceeding, instead of ending up in a supervision situation and having to do it all over again.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Leif Nysmed, for the question!

The Center Party is a decentralist party, which means that we actually like our municipal politicians and listen to them most of the time. But even in a party where there are very many wise people, opinions can sometimes differ. That is how it looks in the Center Party, and that is how it looks in the Social Democrats and in several other parties. I have also spoken with the person you are referring to. I have also heard other Center Party members welcome this proposal and think that it is wise and a step in the right direction.

Of course, I absolutely accept that there are certain risks. But in the other scale, what this freedom can mean in all the tricky situations that have arisen can be placed. One wants to change the skylight in their villa but gets a no – based on what?

It is not the case that today's legislation is perfect. Nor is it the case that just because one makes this change, one gets a High Chaparral situation. It is still the case that even those who are not subject to notification requirements must follow building codes. In that case, it is a matter of cleaning up among the unprofessional companies that build incorrectly and not having this mistrust towards the individual property owner, who actually just wants to have skylights or change something else on their own property.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

Before the final exchange of remarks, I remind you of the rules of the chamber. When a member speaks to another member, it is not "you" or "you" (plural) that applies, but first and last names.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Alireza Akhondi, for the answer!

Skylights are a technical detail. When it comes to what one needs a building permit for or does not, this has been an anomaly and a deficiency that has been pointed out for a long time, so it is good that it is being addressed in this context.

I am thinking rather of the fact that the requirements that are set still remain, even if we remove the reporting obligation. I know from experience, as I come from the industry, that those for whom the work is performed often do not know all the rules.

When it comes to the fire safety rule, I sat and discussed this with a fire inspector last week. I noted that I, coming from the industry, myself am very ignorant about the fire safety parts. What does it look like for the average person? How do you know how far from the main building a building is allowed to stand, considering the risk of fire spread, for example? It varies. It is not two, four, or eight meters. It can depend on what the house looks like. Does one know that? Is it not good that one receives a notice about this before one has set up the house incorrectly?

I think it is smart to have the right specifications before one starts building, because in hindsight it will become more expensive. It is not good for the individual. It cannot be a freedom reform that you have to redo an investment that you have made. How can it be a freedom reform? It is a chimera.

It is not the Center Party that has put forward this proposal, but it is the government. It is they who should take the criticism much more to heart. To place the entire risk on the individual is very serious. This is something one really must think about. One actually has some time after this decision has been made before the reporting obligation in the PBF is abolished; it is not that we are making a decision on. One must consider how this affects the individual. This is not a freedom reform.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker and Leif Nysmed! I have great respect for the objections being raised. I have a brother who works in the industry. He has studied for x years at KTH and has worked in the industry for x years. When you ask him about individual detailed rules, it is not certain that he knows them; instead, he has to look up the answer. It shows how complex we have made things – not even those with industry knowledge know all the rules.

But that is not what the question is about. The question is about whether more things and measures should be able to be exempt from the reporting requirement. It is also not the case, Leif Nysmed, that everything today is covered by the reporting requirement. We trust people and that they can manage to produce information and ensure that they do the very best for their own property. There, one has an internal drive to want to do the right thing. I am convinced that people, even now when we expand the number of measures exempt from building permit requirements – so complex as this is – will also, by their own internal drive, be able to ensure that they build correctly and properly.

I and the Centre Party believe in people. The core of our liberal worldview is that people can, and the task of politics is to create the conditions needed so that one can realize oneself and one's local community. But I appreciate the objections and thank Leif Nysmed, Madam Speaker.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker, members of the House, observers and listeners at home in the TV sofa! As you have noticed, we are debating here today the government's proposal for a new regulatory framework for building permits. At first glance, it may seem that it is only a technical adjustment of the Planning and Building Act. But I would like to argue that is not the case. This is, after all, a reform that concerns increased freedom for the individual, decentralization of power, and trust in people.

Politics must deliver solutions that match people's dreams and needs and continuously work to remove the obstacles that have arisen in people's everyday lives. Therefore, I welcome the new regulatory framework. It is, as said, a reform that is fundamentally based on a liberal conviction that people themselves can and want to make wise decisions about their lives and their homes, if they are only given the freedom and the trust to do so.

The common thread in this reform is, as said, increased individual freedom and trust in people's abilities. Today, things such as the color of your house are micro-managed – we have heard examples of this here in the speaker's chair earlier today. We Liberals believe that you, as a property owner, know best what color it should have and how you should develop it. The public sector simply should not interfere in this unnecessarily.

Madam Speaker! What does this actually mean in practice? Imagine a family, a young couple from Mjölby, we can say, who are expecting their second child. With the current rules, they would have been forced to initiate a building permit process that could have become very long just to extend the house with an extra room and avoid moving from the residential area where they have established themselves, where the first child started preschool, got to know friends, and began extracurricular activities. With the new regulatory framework, they can instead start immediately and extend their home by up to 30 square meters. Depending on which municipality you live in, you also avoid potential high fees and unnecessarily long waiting times. For the family, it means that they can adapt their home to their needs as life changes. This is, after all, freedom in practice.

Another example is that you will receive a total permit-free area to dispose of freely. Within a detailed-planned area, the pot is 45 square meters and outside the detailed plan, a full 65. The freedom increases because you yourself get to choose whether you want to construct a guest cottage, a carport, or enclose a balcony without having to contact the town hall for every small individual project.

We are simultaneously introducing an opportunity for affected neighbors to give their written consent if someone wants to build slightly closer to the plot boundary than is normal today. Here, the public sector relinquishes some control and lets neighbors handle matters by mutual agreement.

Perhaps the neighbor on the other side of the fence, after all, has a slightly better understanding of what is reasonable for you and your family than the officials at the municipality do. This is decentralization in practice, based on trust between people.

Such as facade changes on small houses becoming exempt from building permits. If you change a door, install new windows, or repaint the house in a new color, you will avoid having to apply for a permit. Today's regulations, where one must do this in certain municipalities, is an excessive meddlesomeness that we are now removing. It will also become possible to furnish an attic as a residence even when the detailed plan has previously said no. Why should we let a locked, dark attic be empty when it can become a nice room for a teenager who has begun to develop a more independent life and does not want their parents around the corner every second? It could also become a residence for a student who received a late admission notice and quickly needs a home in their new municipality. Now that chance is being given.

When sports facilities under 1,500 square meters are exempt from building permits, it becomes easier to establish fields, outdoor gyms, and smaller halls. This means more places for spontaneous sports, more movement in everyday life, and better conditions for community life. It means less time in queues and more time to play, run, and meet.

Madam Speaker! The list of simplifications can be made longer. In total, it concerns approximately 40 different regulatory relaxations in the building permit area. At the same time, however, it is not a freedom without responsibility. All the basic requirements for buildings – requirements for safety, quality, environmental considerations and other things that have been raised here earlier today – remain. The difference is that we no longer distrust the citizens and require a preliminary review of every little simplification.

Critics have, among other things, pointed out that it is believed the risk of disputes between neighbors will increase and that the disputes move from the building permit stage to afterwards. But let us be honest: Nor is today's system free of conflict. Rather, conflicts today are channeled into protracted appeals of building permits. I and my colleagues believe in an early dialogue and that simpler rules can reduce these conflicts.

Even today, it happens that neighbors say they have no objection to the construction, yet the bureaucracy still requires a formal building permit that can take months. With the new order, one can reach an agreement without the public sector getting unnecessarily involved.

Madam Speaker! I am convinced that the social benefit in the long run will be great. More housing will be produced. Processes will go faster, and resources will be used more smartly. By giving increased trust and increased freedom to homeowners, I am convinced that we will make Sweden a little better.

With this said, I also wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Members! Audience! I want to begin by saying that we from the Miljöpartiet side think that simplification is good.

As long as one knows what one is doing, conducts consequence analyses regarding nature and climate, and also protects nature, climate, and the cultural environment, we think that simplification is good – that is to say, if the reform actually also involves a simplification.

But in this case, we believe the opposite, that it will become very messy. There is a great deal of good input from heavy referral bodies that the government unfortunately has not listened to. The very biggest deficiency is what Leif Nysmed has pointed out several times, namely that one moves from pre-examination, i.e., thinking ahead in advance, to post-examination in the supervision stage. One thinks ahead when it is already too late. We believe that this will entail great risks for futile construction, i.e., that one builds first and then has to rectify it. It will be both costly and difficult for those who have built.

We also believe that it will provide a breeding ground for conflicts between neighbors. The fact that there are already conflicts during the preliminary testing phase indicates that there will be even more conflicts afterwards.

We also see that the costs are shifted from the construction companies to the taxpayers through the supervision. It is not only we in Miljöpartiet who think so, but also a long line of referral bodies. This includes, among others, the Swedish Centre for Architecture and Design, DHR – Participation, Agency, Freedom of Movement, several county administrative boards, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, and Svea Court of Appeal. These are, therefore, no easy referral bodies. They do not believe that this will lead to a more efficient, simpler, and more legally secure processing – on the contrary. They also do not believe that it will lead to long-term sustainable construction.

We already see today that the supervision is lagging and needs to be financed, and now even more will be added to the supervision stage.

This issue of the cultural environment is something the Tidögänget usually speaks warmly about when it comes to the cultural canon and other matters. Here we see heavy referral bodies stating that this will risk cultural environment values being lost forever. It concerns Boverket, Riksantikvarieämbetet, Statens konstråd, and Svenska byggnadsvårdsföreningen. And instead, one is supposed to have impersonal, standardized Sverigehus. We truly find this to be regrettable.

Regarding nature and climate, there are not really any impact assessments. We believe that the risk of exploitation in ecologically sensitive areas is underestimated. We believe that it will affect water issues, climate adaptation, and biodiversity. We are also concerned about the increased small-scale construction. What will it mean in terms of increased energy use, transport, and resource consumption?

Then there are several other permits and exemptions that will continue to be required. According to the current order, the municipalities shall inform about these permit requirements in the building permit decision, but now instead the individual developer shall keep track of this. It will become very complicated and messy, we believe. We would like proper climate and environmental assessments to be made.

I also want to bring up Sápmi. The government proposes that particularly valuable environments and buildings should be identified in the comprehensive plan. Here, it is of the utmost importance that the municipalities within Sápmi are required to cooperate with the local Sámi population.

When it comes to sports facilities, many referral bodies argue that the effects on the surroundings depend on the activity itself and not the size of the facility itself. We therefore believe that there should be a building permit requirement regardless of size. There will be an impact with noise, light pollution, transport, and other things.

Summa summarum: This could have been very good if the views from the referral bodies had been incorporated. We have a concern for cultural values and a concern that no consequence analysis has been conducted regarding climate and environment.

Then we have this issue where one moves from thinking before acting to doing it in hindsight. It unnecessarily fuels conflicts between neighbors.

With this, I move for approval of reservation 6.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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