Simplified rules for altering a building

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! During this parliamentary term, a number of changes have been made to the regulations for the renovation and construction of housing. These involve both larger and smaller measures. I am pleased that we have been able to work as much as we have on simplifying the regulations.

Today we are discussing another change in the area. It is about simplifying the rules for modifying a building and providing the possibility for greater freedom to develop the residence. The Sweden Democrats take a positive stance on the proposal and see it as an opportunity to remove obstacles to producing new housing and utilizing the existing stock better. It contributes to us getting more housing in Sweden.

The purpose of the proposal is to clarify, simplify and create better predictability in the case of alteration and reconstruction. Requirements for accessibility and usability in the case of alteration and reconstruction shall not apply to the entire building in the end; one shall not have to go back in time.

I think it is good that with the changes being made today, conditions are created to rebuild without having to adapt the entire building. With this regulatory framework, we facilitate the addition of more housing. We also make concessions from requirements on accessibility and usability when housing is furnished in attics and in semi-basements, which makes it possible for us to produce more housing in those forms.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal means that we get simpler application of the building regulations, shorter permit and construction processes and, in the long run, also lower costs. I see it as a good additional reform in the area. I move for approval of the proposal in the committee report.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 1 in the Committee on Civil Affairs' report number 39.

We Social Democrats share the ambition to simplify regulations that are cumbersome and unclear and which unnecessarily complicate construction and renovations. Sweden needs more housing. We need more conversions, more conversions of premises into housing and a better utilization of the existing stock.

But simplification must never become an excuse to dismantle fundamental requirements for accessibility and equality. That is where the government's bill goes wrong.

In the report, several changes to the Planning and Building Act are proposed. Some parts are reasonable and can contribute to a clearer regulatory framework. We welcome the proposals in the parts that involve simplifications that facilitate renovation and thereby also provide a more efficient use of the existing building stock.

It is reasonable that the regulatory framework is modernized and made more flexible and predictable. It is also positive that the regulatory framework becomes clearer, among other things by the term "reconstruction" being replaced with "major building modification".

We do, however, share several referral bodies' concern regarding the consequences of the proposal. Simplifications are needed but must not occur at the expense of basic requirements for, among other things, accessibility, usability, health, and good housing standards.

The regulatory framework must reflect that a home is not just any ordinary commodity. Against this background, we believe that the government must ensure that the relaxations in the regulatory framework do not lead to impaired accessibility for persons with reduced mobility and orientation skills.

But the government goes significantly further than that. It is proposed that housing in attics and in semi-basements shall be completely exempted from requirements on accessibility and usability for persons with specifically impaired mobility and orientation abilities.

Mr. Speaker! These are not small technical adjustments. It is fundamentally about what kind of society we want to build. Do we want to build a society where people can live, reside, and participate on equal terms? Or do we accept that certain people are practically shut out as soon as the housing is built?

For us Social Democrats, the answer is obvious. Accessibility is not a special interest. It is a matter of rights. It is about people who use wheelchairs. It is about elderly people who want to be able to stay at home. It is about people with visual impairments. It is about families with children and strollers. In practice, it is about very many people.

It is also about the future. We know that Sweden's population is getting older. We know that the need for accessible housing will increase sharply during the coming decades. We already have very many housing units today that are inaccessible. Approximately 75,000 staircases are without an elevator, according to Hissförbundet.

Sweden needs more accessible housing. Accessibility is good for everyone. At the same time, Boverket's latest housing report shows that there is a shortage of accessibility-adapted housing for the elderly. In that case, it is strange that the government chooses to back away from the principle of universal design.

Mr. Speaker! The Government argues that the reliefs are needed to produce more housing. But several referral bodies have directed sharp criticism at the proposals. The Equality Ombudsman, the Agency for Participation, and disability rights organizations have warned of negative consequences and questioned whether the proposals are truly compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

It is a criticism that the government does not take seriously enough and waves away far too lightly. We Social Democrats believe that it must be possible to combine increased housing construction with high requirements for accessibility. It is not a contradiction. It is a question of will.

Mr. Speaker! We are also critical of the government removing the special status of accessibility requirements in the legislation. There is a reason why these requirements have historically had a stronger position.

It is about the fact that for a long time, society was built in a way that excluded people. The accessibility requirements were not introduced by chance. They were introduced because people were previously shut out from housing, workplaces, and public environments.

Now the government risks taking a step backward again. This is happening at the same time as we know that large parts of the existing stock still have significant deficiencies in availability.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats also demand a proper follow-up of the consequences of the legislative changes. When the regulatory framework is changed in a way that affects the balance between cost-effectiveness and quality requirements, the state needs to take responsibility for evaluating the outcome. This applies particularly to the effects on housing quality, accessibility, and health, but also to how the regulatory framework is applied in practice.

If the government now chooses to implement such extensive changes, one must also be prepared to follow up. How is the availability in the existing housing stock affected? How are people with disabilities affected? Have the changes led to more housing? What consequences will it have for society in the long term?

The risk is that when we reduce the availability of housing, we push the costs onto the municipalities, which have to provide accessibility adaptations to an excessively large extent. Are we prepared to take that cost and redo things afterwards instead of doing it right beforehand? Follow-up, analysis, and accountability are needed.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats support the need for simplifications in the construction process. But we do not accept that accessibility and equality are what get sidelined.

Again: This is not the first bill that reduces accessibility. A strong society is not built by shutting people out. It is built by us planning long-term, building sustainably and ensuring that all people can live their lives on equal terms.

Mr. Speaker! Therefore, we Social Democrats again move for approval of reservation 1 in the report.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In recent decades, the demand for office premises has changed fundamentally. 20–30 years ago, the norm was that one sat in a private office room or possibly in a designated spot in an office landscape. After the turn of the millennium, this gradually changed to it becoming increasingly common with so-called flexible offices where the areas are divided into different activity zones and where employees no longer have fixed places.

Also, what is called coworking has made its entrance. It is a form of office hotel where different companies and organizations share common spaces and facilities. When the covid pandemic broke out in 2020, the development towards more home work and remote meetings was also accentuated.

All this together has created demand for completely new types of offices and office solutions. At the same time, demand has decreased for older offices with many small rooms, so-called cell offices. New buildings are now being built based on flexibility and more focus on meeting rooms and opportunities for remote meetings. Where possible, so-called cell offices are being converted into open floor spaces.

Geographically as well, demand has changed. Central locations are still performing strongly while peripheral premises are more difficult to rent out. The need for square meters per employee is decreasing while the office's location in the city is perceived as increasingly important.

Mr. Speaker! A parallel development in both the construction and real estate industries is that there is an increasing demand for circularity and reuse. Much focus has been on reusing components of buildings, for example, preserving bricks and doors during demolition.

But equally important, or perhaps even more important, is to extend the building's lifespan. Instead of knocking down a house and reusing the bricks, why not reuse the house for new purposes? That discussion is particularly relevant when it comes to buildings that are no longer suitable as offices but can be converted into housing.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, there are many regulations that hinder progress and create ambiguities and increase costs. Sometimes it becomes easier to demolish a house and reuse the bricks than to save the house from demolition and reuse the house.

Mr. Speaker! Today's bill does not solve all the obstacles to converting offices into housing, but it solves some. The proposals also make it easier to make changes in buildings and in that way extend the buildings' lifespan. The bill clarifies and simplifies the rules in the Planning and Building Act for larger building alterations.

For a long time, many property owners, housing cooperatives and companies have experienced that today's regulatory framework has been difficult to interpret.

The concept of "renovation" has created uncertainty. What applies? What requirements can be set? How far-reaching will the consequences of a change in a building be?

Mr. Speaker! When the regulatory framework is unclear, it does not only lead to legal disputes and increased costs. It also leads to necessary investments being postponed or never happening. People would rather demolish than reuse. That is why we are now replacing the term "renovation" with the term "major building modification," and it is clearly defined in the legislation what it is. This is a step towards a more transparent regulatory framework where property owners can better understand which requirements apply from the very beginning.

It is also important that we now limit the possibility of imposing extensive follow-up requirements on the entire building when only parts are being rebuilt. Today, a relatively limited change in practice can trigger very large requirements for the entire property. It drives up costs, complicates renovations, and risks making projects financially impossible. It is not reasonable.

When a major building modification is made, the requirements shall primarily apply to the part that is actually modified. At the same time, serious deficiencies concerning health and safety must, of course, be able to be rectified. It is a reasonable balance between social responsibility and proportionality.

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates believe in high ambitions when it comes to accessibility, energy efficiency, and sustainability. But we also believe that regulations must work in reality. If the rules become so extensive and costly that people refrain from renovating and developing properties, we are in practice counteracting both housing supply and the climate transition.

This is particularly important in a situation where Sweden needs more housing, more energy-efficient buildings, and an increased reuse also of existing buildings.

Mr. Speaker! I move that the committee's proposal for a decision be approved.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Members! Today we are debating the Government's bill Simplified rules for the modification of a building. The title may sound harmless. But behind the simplifications lies a drastic deterioration of accessibility for people with disabilities.

The current government's legislative proposal means that the accessibility requirements shall only apply to the part that is being renovated and that the requirement for a holistic approach – i.e., improving the entire building – disappears. It is a deliberate choice. Requirements for the entire building shall remain when it concerns fire, health, and energy, but not when it concerns accessibility for persons with disabilities.

I will give an example. If a property owner renovates a 1960s house, the Planning and Building Act today requires that the entire building must be usable for those who are in wheelchairs, use walkers, or use strollers – not just the renovated or newly built parts.

This requirement has, over 20 years, enabled modern elevators, doors with proper passage dimensions, and accessible toilets also in the old property stock.

In March 2024, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities reviewed how Sweden complies with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The UN's judgment was harsh, Mr. Speaker. Sweden risks moving backward instead of forward. The Institute for Human Rights established that the convention has had a lack of impact in Swedish legislation. Nine months later, the government submitted a bill that makes it even worse.

The convention is clear: The State is obliged to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to the physical environment, both in existing buildings and in new buildings.

Every fifth Swede lives with a disability. It is not a small group with special interests. It could be the neighbor, the parent or the colleague. For them, it matters whether there is an elevator, whether the door is wide enough and whether the toilet can be used.

The Planning and Building Act has become complicated in a way that creates unnecessary uncertainty, but the requirements for accessibility need to be clarified, not removed. Make the requirements more predictable! Adapt them according to how large and old the house is and how extensive the renovation actually is! That gives the developers the clarity they need without overriding a fifth of the population.

The Equality Ombudsman argues that the proposal is incompatible with both the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and all people's equal right to live included in society. They point out that the form of discrimination, lack of accessibility, does not cover housing. They argue that the exception should be removed, Mr. Speaker. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is also critical that lack of accessibility does not cover housing. They recommend that Sweden remove that exception from the Discrimination Act.

We in Miljöpartiet want the Riksdag to break out the accessibility issues from this bill, take them seriously and investigate them properly. There is, in fact, a choice to be made here. One can show that clearer rules and accessibility can go hand in hand, or one must take responsibility for actively choosing to exclude a large part of our population.

I naturally support reservation 1, but I move for the approval of reservation 2.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats have long pushed for a significant simplification of rules within the construction and housing sector to make it easier for people to own and develop their own property, to create more housing, and to reduce bureaucracy. I think this report is well in line with that. One should also consider what the government has done during this mandate period.

We have introduced a new regulatory framework for building permits. This means that we have exempted quite a few different parts from building permits. The building committees out in the municipalities are a bit angry because they have been given a bit less to do, but I am glad that the bureaucracy is decreasing.

We have also submitted proposals for simplifications regarding accessibility requirements in student housing – this is so that more student housing can be built. We see that it is having an effect.

Boverket's new building regulations have arrived – the purpose is regulatory simplification. It also concerns changes to the shore protection which facilitate and simplify residential construction. It concerns type-approved houses – which are intended to simplify when it comes to building more small houses. And it concerns simplifications in the permit process.

This is a series of things that the government has done during the mandate period to simplify the rules regarding the construction of housing. It is actually about that: that we should be able to build housing.

I believe that in the case of a conversion, one should be able to set reasonable requirements on the design when the building is changed for some reason. One can always consider what reasonable requirements are. One can consider how the building is used but also what it is to be used for. What is proposed is that the old concept of "conversion" should be replaced with the concept of "major building alteration" and that the consequential requirements on the entire building should be limited. It is a step in the right direction, I believe. It makes the regulatory framework more predictable. It reduces unnecessary complications, and it becomes cheaper to renovate.

The proposal facilitates the conversion of, for example, offices into housing. It is a smart use of resources. It contributes to our ability to meet the housing shortage without always needing to build new on farmland or in green areas that we actually want to preserve.

The Christian Democrats want people to have greater power over their property. Reducing the state's and municipalities' ability to impose far-reaching follow-up requirements during renovations goes hand in hand with Christian Democratic policy.

Lower thresholds for renovation can contribute to a more vibrant countryside and more vibrant smaller towns. It can also keep housing costs down in the long run.

But what is it that we are actually talking about? Yes, during a renovation – for example, when apartments were built in an office building – the building committee could previously demand extensive upgrades of the entire building. It was about elevators, full accessibility, energy efficiency, and passage widths in unchanged parts. We mean that it meant that people actually didn't carry out these renovations so that the offices could be used as housing.

Now the requirements for design and technical characteristics will primarily apply to the part that is being changed. It could, for example, be a matter of a new residential floor being added. Consequential requirements for the rest of the building are limited to applying to serious safety risks or specific areas, such as broadband, energy, thermal insulation, or sustainable mobility.

What does this actually mean? Well, it means that we get more housing but also that there will be lower costs and faster projects.

Is this good for the tenant? Yes, of course it is. It will result in lower costs. If one wants higher costs for the tenant, one must obviously set the previous requirements, but then the office will also not be converted into housing.

I think it is quite clear how the government intends to be able to increase housing construction in Sweden and reduce the costs for the individual to live in these homes.

I vote in favor of the proposal.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The bill Simplified rules for modification of a building contains several important changes. The term "reconstruction" is replaced with "major building modification." It may sound like a linguistic adjustment, but it is in fact an important clarification.

Today's rules create uncertainty regarding when a measure should be seen as a renovation and thus when extensive follow-up requirements can be triggered. Now the government is making the rules clearer. A major building modification shall refer to a measure that is sufficiently extensive, both in terms of the measure's significance for the building and the size of the investment.

This is important, Mr. Speaker, because uncertainty is also a cost that can often determine whether a project happens or not. When the rules are unclear, the developer must account for margins, delays, redesigns, and the risk of different assessments. Ultimately, a project that should have become housing can become yet another investigation that gets stuck in a desk drawer.

Mr. Speaker! Another central part of the bill is that the possibility of imposing so-called follow-up requirements is limited. This is fundamentally sound. If someone renovates a delimited part of a building, it should not automatically mean that costly requirements can be imposed on parts of the building that are not affected by the measure. The requirements must be relevant, proportionate, and connected to what is actually being done.

Today, the risk of follow-up requirements may cause property owners to choose not to carry out any improvements at all. They refrain from renovating, rebuilding, and creating new homes, precisely because a project can trigger requirements far beyond the planned measure.

It is a bad arrangement. A rule intended to raise quality can, in practice, lead to nothing being done. Then we get neither better accessibility, better housing or better buildings.

Mr. Speaker! As we have heard, there are some objections to the proposal, not least regarding accessibility. We shall take that seriously. Accessibility is important. People with disabilities shall be able to live free lives, participate in society and have access to housing, premises and public environments. It is a core issue in a democracy.

But that is why it is also necessary to talk about the trade-offs. This bill does not abolish the requirements for accessibility, nor does it say that accessibility is unimportant. It says that the requirements when modifying existing buildings must be able to be adapted to the current conditions for what already exists.

There is, in fact, a difference between building new on a plot and modifying an existing building with given technical, economic, and cultural-historical conditions. An attic, a semi-basement, an older house, an existing frame, or a building with limited spaces cannot always be treated as if it were a new construction.

Mr. Speaker! This reform is also in line with the larger reorganization occurring in Boverket's new building regulations. The new rules are based on functional requirements and less detailed regulation and provide greater scope for technical development, new solutions as well as new materials and methods. This reduces the risk of construction being locked into established methods of work.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal. Have a nice weekend!

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 26 May.)

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