Planning and construction

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! For the vast majority of Swedes, the dream home is a house with a yard. The answers depend somewhat on how the question is phrased, but an overwhelming majority of Swedes indicate in almost every survey that a house of their own is the dream home – even when the Tenants' Association (Hyresgästföreningen) asks the question.

But it is not small houses that have primarily been built during the last decades. Instead of building what people demand, large apartment complexes have been built - partly because this is what the politicians have demanded, but partly also because the current regulations within the planning and building area create economies of scale for building apartment complexes and prioritize quantity over quality and small-scale.

A paradigm shift is required in Swedish housing policy. A rental apartment in a boring box cast out in a field cannot continue to be the norm for how a newly built home should look.

The ideas behind the self-sufficiency movement that dominated housing construction during the beginning of the last century must be restored. We need to create regulations and systems that instead encourage and enable more Swedes to actually obtain the dream home they dream of. We must achieve urban planning where new garden cities grow up and make people's dreams a reality.

Mr. Speaker! I believe that no one in this chamber has missed the grim statistics regarding housing construction that are now coming, forecasts showing 20,000-30,000 started homes this year and next year compared to 67,000 in 2021, or 63,000 homes per year which is Boverket's estimate of the need to keep pace with population development.

Housing construction empirically always lies at the beginning of a business cycle, and from that perspective, it is not surprising that housing construction is decreasing now that the business cycle is going down. It is, on the contrary, largely why we are now entering a recession.

Now, politics has two important tasks. One is to stop the inflation so as not to further worsen things for households and companies. The other is to make the reforms on the housing market that are required to achieve a functioning housing market. We do not want to end up in a long-term decline in housing construction with all the consequences that would entail.

I can state, as I read through the motions, that all parties now, to some extent, embrace the importance of regulatory simplifications and making it easier to build and reducing the time from idea to finished house, all to faster and more easily produce more good homes and address the housing shortage. This is good and positive, and I gladly extend a hand so that we can together create change in this area.

Mr. Speaker! The debate on planning and construction very easily becomes focused on regulations and statistics. Which laws and rules should be changed to achieve more housing? How will we reach so and so many thousands of homes? How many more thousands of homes must we build to meet the housing shortage?

It is said that if you have a hammer, you only see nails. As a Member of Parliament in the Committee on Civil Affairs, it is the regulatory framework we have as a tool, and then the discussion easily becomes very focused on just the regulatory framework. At the same time, the regulatory framework as it stands today rarely creates a holistic approach. The focus is more often on individual detailed plans or building permits and how these are applied.

If I should be self-critical, I believe that we all, regardless of political affiliation, would need to look up and also discuss urban planning in a broad sense: How do we design a regulatory framework that also creates a good urban environment, a good environment to live and work in? How do we create the cities and villages that our voters actually want to live in?

One thing I am fairly certain of: The square boxes that have dominated housing construction over the last few decades will not go down in architectural history as the most optimal living environments. Nor will the office complexes in glass and concrete or the shopping centers outside our major cities be looked back upon by coming generations with envy or inspiration.

When one is out in Sweden, one can observe that there is a very strong movement in many cities with an increased popular engagement regarding urban planning issues. Facebook groups such as Yimby and Arkitekturupproret have thousands of members who discuss architecture and design issues, but it does not happen from a professional perspective but from the perspective of the ordinary citizen. It is about citizens who live, work, and operate in the city and who care about their city and the city's design but feel a frustration because builders, architects, and for that matter politicians, do not listen and do not care about their perspective.

But there is also another movement, namely that more and more builders and architects are changing their way of working and considering the long perspectives. They want to leave behind houses and buildings that will stand for hundreds of years and that people will look back on, be inspired by, and be proud of. In return, these architects and builders often get very uncomplicated processes with few appeals, for the simple reason that neighbors and other stakeholders actually welcome that such houses are built.

Design issues and mechanisms for how we can incorporate the population's views on, for example, architecture at an early stage are things that I think we as parliamentary politicians should place an increased focus on, simply because it is expected of us.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: Sometimes it sounds in the debate as if the housing shortage can be built away. It is obviously not that simple. As long as the housing market in Sweden does not function, there will always be a housing shortage. It is the consequence of a non-functioning market that there is a shortage. If you introduce a planned economy in the Sahara, there will be a shortage of sand.

To make the market function, several things are needed. Simpler rules for new construction are one. Reviewing rental rules and tax rules is another. But how we use the existing stock is an often forgotten aspect.

Many judges argue that we are in a structural transformation when it comes to how we use our office premises. During the pandemic, remote work increased, and the workplace is simply used in a different way. Previously, one sat alone in an office room during the entire work week, but as more and more people work from home, one instead sits and does the pure office work at home, and when one is at the office, one meets people and interacts with colleagues.

It is probably not too strong a guess that the number of square meters per workplace will decrease in office landscapes and that the requirements for modern offices will look different than they have in recent decades. A similar development will we see when it comes to retail premises, hotels, and so on.

Then the question remains what we should do with all the premises that are no longer used for their original purpose. Today, a complicated regulatory framework leads to it often being more economical to simply demolish the existing building and instead build a new house if one wants, for example, housing. From an environmental perspective, it would have been better to convert existing premises into housing or other areas of use. The best way to recycle is to reuse.

It is economically and sustainability-wise madness that we do in this way today. Here, the regulatory framework must be reviewed to facilitate a more flexible use of existing stock.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! Planning and construction are characterized today by a housing shortage, housing segregation and a very great need for climate transition, while society at large is characterized by injustice and inequality. We see ever-widening gaps and increasing instances of serious poverty in one of the world's richest countries. We should be able to do better. Sweden is one of the richest countries in the world.

But instead, segregation and injustices continue to increase. For the first time in two decades, we also have a government whose policy leads to increased emissions instead of reduced emissions. This was stated by the Climate Policy Council just a couple of weeks ago.

"We absolutely have both the opportunity and the conditions to reduce our emissions," said the council's chairman when they released their government-critical report. I would like to assert the same thing when it comes to planning and construction: We can absolutely do better. With the right will and the right politics, we can create a fairer and more equal Bostadssverige - a society where everyone has a place, not just those with the thickest wallets.

Madam Speaker! What Sweden needs is an active state housing policy that also financially contributes to the construction of more environmentally friendly rental apartments with reasonable rents. We need state and regional planning that dares to pressure those municipalities that today do not take their share of the responsibility for housing provision for all residents. We need a state policy that takes the need to renovate and energy-efficient the existing multi-family housing stock seriously.

The goal of the state housing policy should, in short, be an equal and sustainable social development – not only economically and ecologically but also socially. But very little of such political responsibility is visible from the right-conservative parties.

Madam Speaker! The country's housing supply is not just a municipal issue. It is a municipal, regional and state issue.

The regional perspective in planning is important in many parts of the country to create balance, and it should therefore have a more governing and binding influence on municipal planning. The regional level should, among other things, be able to direct how many dwellings each municipality shall construct, either themselves or through another landowner or housing developer, and what type of dwellings there is a need for.

Vänsterpartiet considers that the government should accelerate the introduction of regional planning in more regions than today.

It is not possible to talk about housing, planning and construction without talking about the climate issue. We are in an acute climate emergency, and the transition policy must accelerate. The construction and real estate sector accounts for a large part of the environmental impact and energy use in society. If we are to reach the national environmental quality goals, the energy use of the built environment must decrease.

Vänsterpartiet wants it to be possible already in the detailed development plan to set requirements on energy efficiency, type of heating, construction, etc. This would increase the conditions for more sustainable construction. We want to change the Planning and Building Act so that this becomes possible.

Madam Speaker! The climate cannot wait. In order to gather the necessary strength, society must dare to lead and show the way through collective solutions. But in a time when we need government steering measures for energy efficiency more than ever, the government parties instead chose at the turn of last year to rapidly and very reluctantly phase out just the support for energy efficiency in multi-family dwellings. It is a phase-out that is upsetting in many ways.

Large parts of the Swedish apartment housing stock are in need of upgrading and energy efficiency. The renovation need is estimated to be acute in all 140,000 apartments, and Boverket estimates the costs for renovations and energy efficiencies from the Million Programme alone to be between 300 and 500 billion kronor. If all these homes were made energy-efficient, an enormous difference would be achieved for the entire society.

Targeted government support is absolutely crucial to address the needs, and when the government in that situation instead phases out the support completely, it will of course hit society hard. In particular, it affects the tenants, who without the support will be forced to bear the entire bill through their rent payments. But the whole of society is a loser.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet wants to reintroduce a support for energy efficiency and renovation of multi-family dwellings. The primary purpose is to achieve more efficient energy use in the built environment and thus in society as a whole, but the purpose is also to contribute to ensuring that tenants do not have to leave their homes due to shock-increased rents in connection with renovation and energy efficiency.

We all know what is called renovation calculation, when property owners renovate and then raise the rents by 100 percent. People who have lived in these homes for 20 years cannot afford to stay and are forced to leave them and become homeless. It is a reality that the right does not want to acknowledge, but it is a reality. That is why many in my municipality, among others, are homeless today. They have nowhere to go. So it is in one of the world's richest countries.

Vänsterpartiet wants a society for everyone, for the poor and for the rich, but also for persons with disabilities. I say this because of, among other things, the proposal that has come from the government. We must continue to build a society that is free from discrimination and where people meet each other with respect. To build away accessibility is a step backward.

The government has tasked Boverket with providing proposals on impaired accessibility in student housing. As usual, everything is only counted in money. Square meters that are built are relatively easy to calculate in kronor, while it is much harder to put a price tag on discrimination and exclusion. The proposals shall be justified in relation to construction costs and without the requirements being lowered more than necessary. So describes the right describes the assignment in today's report. But where is the limit for what is considered necessary? When is it no longer necessary for a person with a disability to have access to society's housing?

Even today, student apartments can be built with a living area of as little as 15.5 square meters. To reduce this area even further at the expense of accessibility appears as pure stupidity. Boverket has also already investigated this previously, and they clarified then very clearly that it is not appropriate to change the requirements for accessibility that apply to student housing. The assignment to Boverket feels most like a bad populist charade from a government that has not presented any sharp reforms in the housing policy area since it took office. There is a desperate need to show something, but the only thing they achieve is kicking people with disabilities.

Madam Speaker! It would have been much better if the government had presented sharp proposals that could improve the housing market for all students. An investment support for the construction of student housing would have been appropriate in these times. We all know that the government's interest in supporting the construction of affordable rental housing in general is non-existent, but perhaps the government parties can imagine supporting the students at least.

Rising construction prices are a problem for all the Nordic student housing markets, but Sweden stands out as the only Nordic country without any type of support for the new production of student housing. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Norway all have different forms of construction subsidies specifically for student housing. Perhaps I can hear from my colleagues on the right side if this is something they can imagine. Do we have any kind of support for student housing? I look forward to hearing about that from my colleagues.

I move for approval of the Left Party's reservation 16.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are discussing the report Planning and Construction. It is a report where 130 motions from the general motion period are addressed. In the motion report, it is proposed to reject all of these motions. That is what I demand, that is to say, I demand the rejection of all reservations in this report.

It can, however, be noted that the government has identified the same issues that are raised in several of the reservations. This concerns, for example, that the public interest quite often stands against the interest of housing construction, that the processing times at our agencies are unnecessarily long, or that there are unnecessarily complicated building permit rules for, for example, student housing construction.

Some motions concern regional planning, which we heard Malcolm Momodou Jallow talk about. There are [such cases] in Stockholm, Skåne and Halland. In my dear Halland, this exists. Permission has been granted to do this. It is no secret that we Christian Democrats think it should be so in more regions. It is important that regions and municipalities cooperate on this. However, it should not be mandatory, meaning that one party should be above the other. But cooperation in these areas should be necessary in order to be able to achieve a coherent housing policy at both national and municipal levels.

According to Boverket's regional needs calculations regarding the construction of housing, which we have discussed several times here, one needs to build approximately 60,000-65,000 homes every year. It is a figure that, at the current moment, may feel quite distant given the economic climate we have and the signals we hear from the industry.

One of the most important things to be able to increase housing construction is that measures are taken to increase the supply of buildable land. Buildable land is needed when housing construction increases again, and I believe this must be ensured now. If the supply of buildable land is increased, I believe a side effect will be that the cost of construction is reduced and a diversity of housing with different forms of tenure is promoted – rental apartments, condominiums, and small houses.

Such a measure could be to introduce an opportunity for municipalities to over-plan for housing with the help of a planning bonus, which we Christian Democrats have proposed a number of times. I hope that the Government Offices look into a planning bonus and have it quite high on the agenda, given that it is extremely important to have finished and directly implementable plans when the housing construction starts up again. As soon as there is an opportunity, there should be plans ready, hopefully also detailed plans, so that one can start the housing construction.

In tighter times, municipalities might think about streamlining when it comes to planning preparedness. One doesn't need this directly, just that year, and one might need the money for something else. But I believe it would be a big mistake for the nation as a whole.

We also need measures that clarify the needs within the municipalities' planning readiness. This could be achieved by tasking the County Administrative Board to identify possible areas for new construction, as we have proposed on previous occasions. It could be a help and a support to the municipalities. When it comes to Halland, for example, the County Administrative Board, the region, and the municipalities could then actually cooperate to map out and see where new housing can be built.

The mapping of the buildable land should, in my opinion, be presented in a register that is accessible to the public. Then, as a housing developer, one would know where there is buildable land.

I believe that this, combined with a planning stimulus to the municipalities, gives the municipalities an incentive to over-plan, and the possibility to increase housing construction then increases radically.

We know from experience that detached housing areas most often rank at the bottom of the municipalities' priority lists. An over-planning would mean that more detached houses are built in Sweden, and we believe that it is very important. Jakob Olofsgård said that it was the lowest housing construction in 100 years in Sweden. That is appalling. People want to live in detached houses. We shall build detached houses. There shall be an opportunity to build detached houses. I believe it is very important that we do this. Therefore, I believe it is good with over-planning of the land.

With this, I move for the rejection of all motions.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! I just wanted to take the opportunity to ask a question regarding exactly that proposal that the government has put forward and the assignment that has been given to Boverket: that they should come up with proposals on impaired accessibility in student housing. Boverket has already previously investigated this. They then made it very clear that it was not appropriate to change the requirements for accessibility that apply to student housing.

The government says that they want to build more housing. Vänsterpartiet wants that too. I have stood here and nagged about it: What are we going to do? What is it that is needed for us to be able to build more housing? Student housing is a very important part of housing construction, because without housing, students cannot start their studies, something that it is incredibly important that they can.

Then the government has concluded that one simply must compromise on the accessibility rules to help the housing companies build cheaply. After all the years we have worked to create accessibility so that everyone in this country can participate in the social development on equal terms, Vänsterpartiet thinks it is very regrettable. If a student with a disability is admitted to a university, it should not be a problem to start the studies just because there are no apartments that are accessible for that student. According to Boverket, that is exactly what will be the consequence if the government does this.

Then my question is: Why does the government and Larry Söder want to take us back 50-100 years by removing precisely the accessibility requirements for student housing?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Malcolm Momodou Jallow and I agree on the problem, which is that there are too few student residences. People must be able to move to a new city and study. We are a knowledge nation. Without knowledge, Sweden stands still, I want to assert, and without knowledge, we cannot create new companies or new jobs.

The obstacle is usually that there are not enough student residences. But there is actually no definition of what a student residence is in the Rent Act. It is a residence like any other. We as a party have said before that we believe student residences should be defined in the Rent Act, because then we believe there is a possibility to be able to create more student residences.

Another way to go is to say that yes, everyone should be able to study. Even people with disabilities should be able to study. They should be able to find an apartment, a student residence, that suits them within the economic framework they can manage. But not everyone needs an identical residence. Some may need a slightly smaller residence. For some, it can be on the third floor without an elevator. One can build on one floor of a house, which makes it not accessible for everyone. But everyone should be able to have a residence.

I do not see it as us reducing accessibility for people with disabilities without us seeing opportunities to build more student housing so that people can participate in our knowledge society. Everyone gets the same opportunity to study. We have different circumstances, we may need different housing.

I do not have the same tunnel vision as Malcolm Momodou Jallow, but I see an opportunity in this. We can build more student housing, we can get them at a cheaper price, and since many of the students want to live in central areas and these are often occupied, perhaps one can build where there actually are student residences today.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! I just want to clarify that Boverket, which has been given this assignment, has received the same assignment previously. At that time, they stated very clearly that it is not appropriate to change the accessibility requirements that apply to student housing. They have said this, and now we are giving them the same assignment. We already know what they think!

I can also inform Larry Söder that the disability organizations have heard this and taken a clear stance. They say: This does not help our members, so we are completely against it.

I can also inform Larry Söder that even Sveriges förenade studentkårer have said that this is not good for their members, so therefore they are against it.

These are organizations that can do this, and everyone says no! We make trade-offs in politics, because we cannot do everything, but in this case we choose corporate profit interests over accessibility, which I as a Left Party member can never accept.

We are talking about rising construction prices, and rising construction prices are a problem for all the Nordic student housing markets, something I mentioned earlier. But Sweden stands out as the only Nordic country without any type of support for the new production of student housing. All the other countries – Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway – have different forms of construction subsidies for specifically student housing.

Larry Söder, his party and the government have chosen to remove the incentives that were used to build cheap student housing, and now they say that it is expensive. Of course it is expensive to build! You have removed all the incentives! We say: Why can't we do like the other Nordic countries and have some form of incentive that will help the construction companies to build student housing cheaper without compromising the accessibility rules? Is it something that Larry Söder's government can imagine doing?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I do not know why the Left Party always advocates for using state funds for everything. The goal must be that a student who moves to Uppsala, or wherever it may be, can find a home and study there. We are a knowledge society, and we must ensure that people can move to a new city and study there.

That must be the goal. The goal cannot be that the state's money should be used for everything. If we can streamline the construction of student housing by adapting them to those who are going to live there, I have no problem with that. I believe that Boverket will come to the conclusion that there is a solution to do this.

I can guarantee Malcolm Momodou Jallow that the Minister for Housing has no ambition to prevent any person with a disability from attending university. Rather, the opposite: More people must go to university. More people must learn new things. More people must receive an education. If we can create cheaper student housing – I say "cheaper", because there are no cheap ones – by changing the requirements, I am the first to say: Yes please, that is great for Sweden!

We need it. We need new people who think anew, we need new companies, we need new jobs. But we must be careful with the state's money, because it can be used in other ways.

(Applause)

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that we stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I want to move for approval only of reservations 1 and 30 in the committee report.

I had rather high expectations for this debate on planning and construction when we began to address the motions concerning the area. The government has had a high sense of self-importance and spoken of a strong start for the housing policy, but it has instead led to a standstill in new construction. To quote one of the actors in the housing market when he showed the sales figures for the year: The patient is dead.

The Right speaks warmly of small house construction, but its passivity now means that small house companies are being undercut by competition and several thousand employees are being laid off within the small house sector.

That is why I, and many with me, expected that the government base could present what the government's "rough start" entails and what new regulatory simplifications would solve the problem that households can no longer afford to demand newly produced [housing]. Instead, nothing new is presented. Yes – a proposal for an investigation on how one can worsen the accessibility and health aspects for students through, for example, lower noise requirements.

There are many references to the previous Social Democratic government's investigations, however nothing new, despite the fact that there are proposals from the market, for example from Bygg i tid with several. Could it be because the government and the Sverigedemokraterna do not think that housing policy is important? There is almost nothing about housing policy in the Tidö Agreement, and in the government's statement, almost nothing was mentioned either.

Where are the Moderates' 70 proposals? Is there such agreement in the Tidö group as the Moderates' member claimed in the previous debate? Have you reached an agreement on the market rent issue?

In the budget, 30,000 rental apartments were now stopped from being provided at lower rent, while at the same time we have a housing minister who is out in Bromma stopping an additional 30,000 homes. It is also a stop for new trunk lines, where municipalities, in accordance with the Sweden negotiation, have committed to building housing in relation to the new railway. It is a great betrayal against all affected municipalities.

The government and the Sweden Democrats do not seem to want to get housing construction started again. No new measures in the form of regulatory simplifications and no economic incentives have been proposed. It is obvious that the construction industry's companies and employees are expected to act as inflation fighters.

Madam Speaker! I have said in all my previous debates on planned construction, and with a fool's persistence I intend to continue to repeat, that we do not build individual houses, but we build communities. With that as a starting point, most understand that planning is required for what is built, where it is built, and how it is built.

The municipalities, which have the responsibility for housing supply, need to be able to plan for the number of housing units, what types of housing forms are needed, and what infrastructure, which preschools and schools, etc., are necessary for society to be able to function. It requires good planning. With today's system, Social Democratic-led governments have succeeded in producing over 450,000 homes, in contrast to the Alliance, which lands around 200,000. It is still possible to build with today's regulatory system, but it is clear that we will always refine the systems and make them better.

The Planning and Building Act is a form of coordination of all interests within community construction. Order and tidiness must be weighed against requirements for fast processes with minimal hassle. The Social Democratic government pushed forward the work on regulatory simplifications, including, among other things, clearer and simpler detailed plan requirements and more exemptions from the requirements for building permits. Here, it was previously adjusted regarding balconies – yes, it was a step, but it was one of many steps. New regulations and regional physical planning have been mentioned by several, and they are also important steps for good planning of society. New regulations on developed comprehensive planning, private initiative rights in PBL, and certified building design companies are some of these steps. There is reason to continue this work, and we would like to cooperate on this.

But we have experience that previous collaborations have not succeeded so well. During the previous parliamentary term, there was a 22-point program. We were all in agreement in the chamber, but there was no energy for an agreement. Sometimes one wonders what honesty lies behind the outstretched hands. Therefore, I hoped that the government would act faster on the inquiries that the previous Social Democratic government initiated, for example, the building permit inquiry. In the inquiry, measures were proposed to address problems that the "attefall" rules have contributed to.

We Social Democrats propose a series of measures to be able to plan for a sustainable social housing policy. In our opinion, this concerns three overarching tasks. Denis Begic mentioned them in the previous debate, but they are worth repeating. It is about building more and sustainable homes, countering social segregation and thereby improving conditions for equal upbringing and living conditions, as well as making it possible for economically weak groups to meet their housing needs.

A residential area with a mixture of tenure types of different types of housing provides a dynamic area. We therefore believe that there should be municipal plans for mixed tenure types and that the municipalities should be able to dispose of a concrete tool in this work by being given the right to specify tenure type in the detailed plan.

Many detailed plans are appealed across Sweden. Besides delaying construction, the long waiting times unfortunately can also affect housing prices. The problem is naturally not that people appeal. In a democracy, it is a fundamental right to be able to point out problems, to have one's case examined, and for a proper assessment to be made of, for example, the detailed plan. But despite that some changes have been implemented, for example by removing the county administrative boards' first instance of appeal for the detailed plans and thereby shortening the time, the processing times are still long. As a result of this, we believe, among other things, that a time limit for the partial delivery of decisions should be introduced in order to shorten the time for the appeal process.

Another important issue that we do not talk about so much is people's health, safety, and well-being. People are affected by their housing, for example due to ambient noise, elevated levels of radon, harmful particles in the air, or unsafe outdoor environments. Health aspects, safety, and people's well-being must also be considered in the planning work of our societies. Therefore, I become a little concerned when we discuss that we should back down from accessibility reforms or from regulations on noise levels, which actually cause a large number of deaths every year.

Madam Speaker! I see that I am running over time, but I have much important to say - so I intend to continue for a little while longer.

The introduction of the rules for attefallshus has increased the possibility of creating new housing in existing built-up areas. We were involved during the previous parliamentary term and developed the rules for the attefallshus so that they can become better and more accessible by moving from 25 to 30 square meters. However, we note that the regulatory framework has also caused difficulties for the municipalities in exercising their planning monopoly. An unintended consequence that has arisen is that actors in certain areas have purchased plots that, according to the detailed plan, are intended for single-family houses, and they have applied for building permits for exactly single-family houses even though it is obvious that it concerns building a semi-detached house – and additionally adding an attefallshus. In some cases, this has led to the number of dwellings within an area tripling compared to the number of dwellings according to the detailed plan. Such a development means that both roads as well as water and sewage become underdimensioned and cannot handle the pressure. Even the planning for preschools, schools, and stormwater management is disrupted, which creates major problems.

According to a RUT report that I ordered during 2022, this is so far limited to Stockholm County and Skåne County, but it also occurs in other places in the country. The Government should therefore review the need for measures against abuse of the attefalls rules to ensure that the purpose of the regulatory framework is not compromised. In Huddinge, where I come from, we have seen the problem and are in agreement across party lines on the issue. This is based on an exemplary good motion submitted by Moderate Erik Ottoson, and that is why we also move for approval of the motion. There is an important part in all of this.

Madam Speaker! In the committee report on housing policy – the previous debate – the government parties and the Sweden Democrats put forward a proposal for a type-approved house of 150 square meters that is exempt from building permits and can be placed anywhere in Sweden. Since we can already observe how the problems arise with the attefall rules, one can naturally wonder whether the right-wing parties have considered the municipalities' planning possibilities. I would have liked to ask the Minister for Housing directly whether this is truly the government's intention. What does the impact assessment look like? What do municipal representatives say about being deprived of the possibility to plan the development in their municipality? Unfortunately, the Minister for Housing is not here, which is naturally a shame. There are a lot of question marks surrounding the government's lack of interest in this policy area. In the absence of the responsible minister, I can only speculate as to whether these building permit-exempt 150 square meter houses are a token concession to the Sweden Democrats so that the government can avoid a declaration from the Riksdag, or if it is a seriously intended proposal that the government will return to in the future. The questions are many, but we will have to return to them in interpellation debates.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by underlining that the housing shortage is something that must be built away. We will not solve this with new construction alone, but it is important that we also build new homes. But then housing is required that average income earners can demand. Otherwise, the construction industry will collapse, as pointed out in a report that we in the committee were sent last week. Increased housing construction is about the financing issue. It is conspicuously absent. It therefore requires more measures than just regulatory simplifications.

(Applause)

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report.

Today, most those involved in housing construction experience that it is a jungle of regulations on several different levels.

Personally, I have participated in several development projects with municipalities to produce new detailed plans for housing construction, but then on the housing companies' side. And believe me; it is an endless task with years of processes. A detailed plan is so incredibly detailed today that all the text on the detailed plan itself becomes so small that you need a digital tool to zoom in with to see what it says. The whole process has, so to speak, swollen. You need a giant printer, an A1 printer, to print out a detailed plan. But you still cannot do it because it has become so complex. The costs for a detailed plan process therefore become very large. It takes a long time, and it is too much hassle.

Today, the land cost constitutes approximately one-third of the construction cost. Even before one has put the spade in the ground, one has therefore spent one-third of the construction cost. That is not to say that this process is not important. It is, for a house is to stand there for a long time. It is also important from an environmental perspective that the process becomes good. But today it takes an unreasonably long time, and it is cumbersome and cost-driving. Therefore, for example, the digitalization in this area becomes extremely important.

It is also satisfying that the government in the budget for 2023 has signaled that rules for construction shall be simplified. It is an important measure because it has a direct impact on what can drive down our housing costs.

When it comes to housing construction and where buildings should be located, how they should be designed, and how the land should be developed, it is not we in this room who are best positioned to know this. This happens at a political level that is local, in the municipalities, where it is necessary to see how this is best to be elaborated. Our municipal boards and our municipal councils do a very large and good job in this. On the other hand, there is a need that the rules governing their work do not unnecessarily complicate and delay the planning.

This government has therefore, in its budget for 2023, announced that the municipalities shall be urged and encouraged to increase their planning readiness, especially when it comes to small houses. That we are now in a construction halt for many housing actors is incredibly tough, but there is always a light at the end of the tunnel. There will always come a time when housing planning can start up again, and then it is important that the municipalities are ready with buildable land so that one can put the shovel in the ground and start building. Or, above all, the excavator – the shovel takes too long.

According to the EU's statistical office Eurostat, Swedish construction costs are the highest in the entire EU. Even in relation to comparable countries, our construction costs are significantly higher. In Finland, which has the same topography, climate, and urban structure as Sweden, the costs are 19 percent lower. In Germany, they are 22 percent lower.

There is reason to ask why the costs are so much lower in our neighboring countries than here. Then we come to the point that we need to start from the beginning and look at regulatory simplifications and what is time-consuming and cost-driving before we provide subsidies and support. We will therefore start at the right end.

Madam Speaker! This morning we had a seminar here in the Riksdag about student housing, where, among others, Sveriges förenade studentkårer were present together with us politicians.

More and more people are choosing higher education. The Liberals as a school party absolutely welcome this so that Sweden can maintain a high level of education and be a country built on knowledge.

Arranging housing at a new study location has improved in some places but is still tough at the large universities. Therefore, we need to take new decisive actions to see how we can build more and cheaper housing for students.

The absolute most important thing for a student when it comes to housing is that it should be affordable, preferably as cheap as possible, and preferably also have an attractive location. It should not be unreasonable that such a residence exists for a student for a limited period of time.

Therefore, I found it pleasing, Madam Speaker, that a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit a research center for exactly this regarding student housing, such as Akademiska hus with several actors operates at the Royal Institute of Technology here in Stockholm. The co-living or shared apartments they have there clearly show that today's building regulations are incredibly rigid when it comes to creating just co-living or shared housing. It is too much hassle, and it prevents the construction of such student housing that many students demand today.

It is not, in fact, the best solution for a student moving to a new location to live alone in a one-room apartment. Students today might think that it is nice to live in a one-room apartment, but research shows that what students demand is community. Loneliness is great even among students. The old student corridors are highlighted among shared housing as something positive that is demanded by students. One does not, therefore, want to live alone in a small one-room apartment. One can imagine sharing with others in these companion apartments, as they are also called, which are cheaper.

But the requirements for accessibility and fire protection and the rules on light and noise are not created to create good student housing. That is shown by this research facility at KTH, where students live in and constantly evaluate.

That is why this government has now given Boverket a mandate to investigate how we can achieve better solutions for student housing specifically. It is no more complicated than that. It is about reviewing how we can improve and adjust so that we facilitate the creation of the student housing that the students themselves demand – those that are community-promoting and cheaper and can be built in locations near campus.

The assignment must, naturally, be carried out together with student organizations and disability organizations, and it must be demonstrated that it is possible to reduce costs and create better student housing based on research.

Akademiska hus is a state-owned company that works a lot with this issue of shared apartments. An architect from there whom I spoke with after our advertisement of the assignment cried with joy because we are addressing this major dilemma that opposes their work with shared housing. It is not about creating worse housing. It is about creating better based on research together with the parties involved. This is what the government is addressing.

Sweden's housing shortage is largely due to complicated rules. It is a jungle of regulations that drives up prices and reduces the number of places where it is profitable to build. We need a chainsaw in this. It is time to clear out.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Madam Speaker! I have a few questions in view of the fact that the member raised a number of problems, particularly regarding costs, and I did not hear any answers regarding solutions. I have also not seen any answers regarding solutions from the government, so I thought I would ask a few questions.

So, according to Boverket, we need approximately 63,500 homes per year to meet the population development we have. How many new homes does the member estimate that regulatory simplifications will create? When would they, in that case, take effect?

What proposals does the member have to lower construction material costs, which are higher in Sweden than in comparable countries?

And what proposals does the member have for lowering the costs for land, which the member raised as a problem?

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Leif Nysmed, for good, relevant questions! We have in the report several observations that the motions are being rejected because much is currently being prepared in the Government Offices. After six months, the work to produce solutions is currently ongoing, and I hope to return with concrete proposals and propositions and discuss them with Member Leif Nysmed going forward.

When it comes to, for example, the cost of land, it is largely about securing more land. Basing it on supply and demand can make it easier to extract this land. We have, Madam Speaker, tasked the county administrative boards, together with the municipalities, to look at how housing construction can be promoted and the availability of land increased. In various investigations, for example Bygg i tid, which I know the member has been involved in, very good proposals have also been presented on how the time for the process of securing the land itself can be reduced. As I touched upon in my speech, this can take a very long time, and it is cost-driving. Consequently, we can also bring down the prices of the land itself.

When it comes to construction material prices, they have been affected by both the pandemic and the crisis and the war we see in our global environment. There are, of course, things we cannot influence directly when it comes to material prices.

We find ourselves in a tough time, with inflation. We also see that we cannot drive up inflation by lowering construction costs with the help of subsidies, which the Social Democrats have also not proposed in their shadow budget.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Madam Speaker! I naturally have all respect for the fact that one has not succeeded in solving all the world's problems in half a year. But one still came with a number of election promises, including those regarding start loans - something that is on the government's desk, fully referred and ready. One has also talked about the removal of the second amortization requirement, which several actors are raising - not because I advocate for this, but I think it is very quiet when it comes to the election promises, which have been broken again. It is not the first time we say this from the speaker's podium about election promises from this government.

This naturally affects very many people very strongly. There are many who are now rewriting their loans, with significantly increased interest costs - several thousand a month, depending on where in the country one lives. If one lives in large cities with high prices, one also has high loans, which means one is affected strongly. I miss these parts.

I did not get a proper answer regarding this matter of simplifying regulations, which is talked about very much. There will be a shortage of approximately 40,000 housing units this year, based on what Boverket says is needed. It will look the same next year as well, if not worse, according to the forecasts one sees. It is at least 80,000-100,000 that we must work to catch up on in the future instead, which means that the needs will increase even more. How many housing units do you believe simplifying regulations will create? And when do you believe the effect will occur in that case? This is very important, because otherwise we must plan for a massive construction in the future - far beyond the more than 63,000. What is your plan for this in that case?

I mean therefore that it is quite unwise to let the industry die out completely just now. It takes a long time for companies that go bankrupt or significantly scale back their operations to get started again. Furthermore, the staff disappears from the companies, and it is not the case that they just stand and wait to be allowed back; many change industries.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your questions! Regarding the proposals that are on the government's table, for example concerning start-up loans, those are also being prepared at this time. We will absolutely have to return to them.

I share the view that we must take responsibility for an industry that has died completely, as the member is pointing out. When I visit construction companies, they describe exactly what the member says here: that it is a complete standstill. It would be incredibly irresponsible to drive on the inflation that has put them in the situation they are in today. For example, abolishing the tightened amortization requirement would be inflation-increasing – not by a huge amount, but every small signal of inflation-increasing measures makes it worse and takes even longer for the construction companies to get started again.

I do not quite understand how the member from the Socialdemokraterna does not grasp this picture. It is not possible; we cannot. I believe in the name of honesty that the member understands this but perhaps does not express it.

I share the opinion of the member, who is also knowledgeable about the construction industry, regarding the problem: The construction industry is completely dead now. But as I pointed out earlier, we are hanging by a thread. When we see that inflation is going down, we need to be prepared in this country to ensure that it starts up again. We have tough years ahead of us when it comes to housing construction, Madam Speaker. We will have to return to whether stimulus is required or not.

But we need to start at the right end. 60,000 homes were built per year during the previous mandate period. That was too little; too few small houses were built. More could have been built. Therefore, we also have a debt from the Social Democratic government's time when it comes to small house construction, which we also must work to pay off. During the recession in 2007, for example, less was also built – the housing industry is very sensitive to this. We must therefore aim to make a new start.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! We debate and discuss planning and construction in the Committee on Civil Affairs. I would like to start by addressing a proposal that the Sverigedemokraterna have discussed for a long time – it concerns regional planning. We believe that it is important to have an overall regional planning for housing construction, which can be combined with the needs that exist regarding infrastructure and also the various municipalities' needs for incoming labor and so on. We believe that regional housing planning could be an important tool to achieve increased housing construction. It should also be noted that this means that the municipalities continue to have self-determination when it comes to construction. This is a planning tool that one can make use of. It has today been introduced in some counties in Sweden. We believe that it should be expanded and introduced in all of Sweden in the long term.

We also need to continue working with the housing and infrastructure preparation that the Sverigedemokraterna have discussed for a long time, to ensure that these two important areas are integrated when it comes to housing construction.

We also need to achieve Nordic building regulations and a Nordic material market in order to make it possible to reduce construction costs. We see that there is a great opportunity here given the similarities between our countries.

Abolishing the elevator standard for student housing would be another good step toward giving more students better conditions to be able to pay their own rent, but also to produce more student housing. It would, of course, not mean that the elevator standard disappears completely for student housing, but it would enable more student housing.

When it comes to aesthetics, Madam Speaker, this is an interpretable and diffuse concept in many respects. We all agree, however, that we need to ensure that we build beautiful homes and residential areas. The importance of us having a pleasant daily environment where we live cannot be overstated.

We mean that we need to increase citizen dialogue in order to avoid the conflicts that often arise during new construction to a greater extent. We also, of course, believe that an increased citizen dialogue would mean that fewer appeals are made. We believe that this can also constitute a part of shortening the lead times in construction.

We need to create conditions for more people to be involved and participate in discussions. This can be done in many different ways. One can, for example, establish beauty councils and architecture programs, which could constitute a form of intermediate step between the comprehensive plan and the detailed plan. There, one can gather opinions and find out what the citizens think about their living environment so that we can counteract the new production that has resulted in us getting boring, unpleasant environments that the citizens do not actually demand to any great extent. We can achieve a residential environment that is pleasant.

Madam Speaker! This means that we need stimulus grants to strengthen the cultural environment competence of our municipalities, in order to be able to work on building further on the cultural heritage we have in the municipality when it comes to the housing policy area. Cultural planning is needed so that when these future plans are developed, the historical perspective on which municipality and which housing environment we are talking about is also included. We need a strengthened protection for our cultural-historical buildings and environments. An obligatory consultation procedure between county architect, municipal architect, civil society, and citizens is needed to ensure that we get the societies and living environments that are requested, but also to reduce the areas of conflict in society.

Since this government took office, there is one thing that pleases me greatly, and that is that the issue concerning our older cultural buildings is being addressed. When an older residence is to be moved, it should not mean that new construction requirements are to be imposed after the building has been moved. In February 2024, an investigation will be completed where data from the building committees has been compiled regarding when they have denied exemptions from current requirements concerning the moving of older residences. It cannot be the intention that our cultural buildings, which for various reasons sometimes need to be moved, should have to be distorted at a later stage due to bureaucratic rules regarding new construction requirements on older residences.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I want to raise a warning finger against the Center Party's demand in the committee report to remove the requirement for building permits for solar cells. This proposal would threaten our cultural-historical environments. I am glad that we have a committee where it is only the Center Party that stands behind a proposal that involves removing building permit requirements for solar cells in our cultural-historical environments.

With this, Madam Speaker, I wish to move for approval of reservation 11.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I shall at some point address my Sweden Democrat colleague's claims, but I would like to start at the other end.

I am a person of principle and believe that what one says, one should keep. Let me take two examples. The government's handling of the planned new main lines in Sweden is, unfortunately, a major derailment. Along the planned railway sections, municipalities, businesses, and private individuals have invested and planned based on what appeared to them as a promise. There are reasons to believe that the lesson many have now drawn is: You cannot trust the state.

It was not without pride that the Center Party stood side by side with the other Alliance parties and presented the Sverigebygget. New railways were to be built, the congestion on the old main lines would decrease, Sweden would do as the rest of Europe and link ourselves closer with railways - for the climate, for travel times, for freight, for our sustainable growth and for the housing market. The matter was moved forward. The State negotiated with the municipalities along the intended tracks. Agreements and contracts were concluded, and expectations blossomed. In accordance with the agreements that were concluded, city planning offices were put to work; districts were to be planned and housing was to be built. It was the municipalities' counter-performance when the State was to lay tracks. The municipalities have done their part. The State has betrayed its promise.

Another example is the investment support, which we debated in the previous report. Gold and green forests were promised. We were a few parties who thought that the investment support had large deadweight effects, that one was financing already intended housing in an unfortunate way. But – and that is a big but – one entered with a promise, people started, and there were long planning processes. When the applications came in, it turned out that the system lacked 16 billion to handle the promises that had been given to the parties involved. It became yet another broken promise and yet another betrayal of the catastrophic housing market that we have in Sweden today. This happened at the same time as the housing shortage was great and housing construction has basically died and been buried: 204 of 290 municipalities report a shortage of housing.

There is much that can be said. If we start at this end: Our housing stock must be utilized more efficiently, especially with today's prevailing situation. At the same time, there is a need for awareness that the conditions for housing construction and the creation of good living environments differ in different parts of the country. A sustainable housing policy must therefore be based on local conditions, while at the same time being adapted to the more overarching societal challenges we face, for example the climate and the energy crisis - hence also Centerpartiet's proposal on permit-free solar cells on roofs.

To remedy the housing shortage and increase the number of available homes, continued work is needed to remove the obstacles to new construction. The state level needs to support and encourage the municipalities in the planning work. The regional coordination in the planning work needs to be strengthened and Lantmäteriets processing times shortened. The many and long appeal processes need to be limited. A municipal pilot project to shorten and simplify building processes should be introduced. Furthermore, there should be an opportunity to designate innovation zones where deviations from current building regulations are permitted.

At the same time as municipal self-determination is important, the digitalization of planning and building processes must continue. An important part of the work to facilitate this is open and free geodata, accessible to the relevant actors. In this way, more can actively participate in community planning.

With the decision to introduce the right of private initiative, it will become easier for planning stakeholders to drive planning processes themselves. If correctly applied, this reform can mean a much-needed relief for the municipalities' planning departments while simultaneously improving the conditions for new production of housing.

Madam Speaker! All around the country, there are many houses that stand vacant. This is one of many examples of a poor utilization of the existing housing stock. In order to lower the thresholds for people to take on this type of house and in that way contribute to more housing being put into use in Sweden's rural areas, we want to investigate a removal of the property fee for the first five years for those who, for permanent residence, take over a building that has not been used for a long time.

Valuable agricultural land needs to be protected from extensive exploitation. At the same time, it must be possible to create individual plots that can be built upon and there must be an opportunity to subdivide existing smaller agricultural properties that are no longer cultivated, so that new owners can inhabit and cultivate the land again. Proportionality is needed when it comes to the assessment of residential construction in Sweden's rural areas. In addition to this, the fee for subdividing land is in some cases unreasonably high.

Madam Speaker! During the spring of 2020, an inquiry was commissioned regarding free rent setting in new production. The increased supply resulting from free rent setting could, in the long run, have consequences that lead to a home of their own for many of those who today are waiting to receive a rental contract. A heavily weighted reason for reforms is also that the incentives for black market trading of rental contracts need to be reduced.

Secondary renting is important for a well-functioning housing market, not least for certain industries and in regions with a high degree of seasonal work. Many who today own a larger residential house where they themselves do not need the entire living space could, through minor renovations, furnish one or more apartments in their own home. Through more liberal tax rules, it could become both easier and more attractive for private individuals to contribute to making more housing available on the market.

The housing market and housing construction are as they are. It is obvious that this chamber and in particular the government has much to prove in order to resolve the problems that have existed for decades in the Swedish housing market.

I understand that a minister has many commitments and is expected to be in many places at once, but I hope that the minister looks at this debate in retrospect and returns to the Riksdag with concrete proposals on how we can together handle the challenges that exist in the Swedish housing market.

We in the Center Party naturally stand behind all our motions in the report, but for the sake of time, I only move for approval of reservation number 3.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! It has been a gloomy month for those of us who worry about the catastrophic consequences of the climate crisis. The IPCC came out a few weeks ago with its major synthesis report, where the research of recent years is summarized for us decision-makers. It is a very gloomy reading. Global emissions must be halved as early as 2030 for us to reach the set climate goals.

Just a week later, the Climate Policy Council, which has the task of reviewing the government's climate policy, presented its report. Even there, the conclusion was a grim reading. For the first time in over two decades, Sweden's emissions are increasing as a result of political decisions. Sweden has gone from being part of the solution to becoming part of the problem.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's emissions shall be reduced to zero by 2045 at the latest. This has been decided by the Riksdag, and it is part of Swedish legislation. Furthermore, Sweden has a specific climate goal for the transport sector. There, emissions shall be reduced by 70 percent by 2030 compared to 2010 levels.

To achieve both of these goals, we need to drive fewer cars, especially in our large cities. This is largely a question of urban planning, and it requires a holistic approach. To reduce the need for cars, Miljöpartiet therefore proposes a number of measures to focus on mobility instead of cars. We want, for example, that the parking standard in the Planning and Building Act be replaced with a mobility standard and that the municipalities should plan for mobility, not motoring.

Madam Speaker! We naturally have several proposals that we support here, but today I want to move for the approval of specifically reservation 15, which is precisely about municipalities planning for mobility, not motoring.

Planning and construction

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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