Planning and construction

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! Now we are here again and shall debate the report Planning and Building.

In Sweden, there is a crisis today. Housing shortages, housing segregation and an enormous need for climate transition continue to characterize today's housing policy and Sweden. Society is unfair and unequal. The climate crisis, poverty and class divides are increasing. Sweden has a government that refuses to take its share of the responsibility for the climate transition. Instead of the government, a policy that leads to increased emissions.

We should be able to do better than what we see today. With every passing day, we see how the gaps in society are increasing. We see more and more serious poverty in Sweden, one of the world's richest countries. We should be able to do better.

In 2008, the government at the time introduced a zero vision for the eviction of families with children, but last year we reached the highest number of evicted children since the measurements began. Almost all of these evictions are due to the household being unable to afford the rent, that is to say, poverty. It is shameful that we cannot do better. It is neither a war nor a natural disaster that has created this. It is political decisions, or a lack of political decisions, that have led us here, where we find ourselves today.

Madam Speaker! Without a clear and strong state commitment, we will not be able to reverse this development. Without a strong government that has the will to break the poverty, the inequalities, and the injustices we are confronted with, it will continue to decline, both in the statistics and in reality.

Planning and construction

Madam Speaker! Sweden lacks today such a government—a government with the political will that dares to invest in building more environmentally friendly rental apartments that ordinary people can afford to live in. We lack a government that sees what exclusion really is and that dares to do something about it. We lack a government that ensures that strong state and regional planning is carried out and that dares to pressure those municipalities that today do not take their fair share of the responsibility for housing provision for all residents.

We lack a government that is not only interested in favoring the wealthy residents but that also understands that it is good for the whole society if even those residents who have the fewest economic resources are spared from poverty and can live a decent life in their own home.

Madam Speaker! The goal of a state housing policy must be that it contributes to an equal and sustainable social development, not only economically and ecologically but also socially. In today's Sweden, much is said about exclusion. People speak of housing areas that should be demolished, primarily because those who live there represent this exclusion.

Much is said about how the planning should focus on the Swedish traditional and small-scale. Away with the grey and large-scale! Let the state decide what is ugly and beautiful! Let everyone live in houses that resemble the Sweden Democrats' Sverigehus, then all alienation should also disappear! And if everyone also owns their homes, poverty will also disappear, and then everything will be fine. So it sounds.

Madam Speaker! If only it were that simple. But so speaks the one who has never been a part of the so-called exclusion. So speaks also the one who does not understand what urban planning and diversity are about. So speaks the one who lives in a self-created exclusion, separated from the reality that applies to so many other residents. So speak many here in this chamber, Madam Speaker.

Physical environments can absolutely contribute to the feeling of exclusion. When no one cares anymore and when even those in power say that people's homes should be leveled to the ground, it can of course be difficult to feel included in society.

But fundamentally, exclusion and segregation are about not being given the same opportunities for education and work. The buildings themselves are not the main problem, and demolishing them does not solve the problems either. Nor does it help, as the government, to continue to remodel all the cheap rental apartments that remain. For where are all those who live there supposed to go then - all those who cannot buy their homes? Where are all these people supposed to go? Where will they live? Will they live in the collection ghettos that may eventually be created? It is there that only those with the worst finances and with the very worst life circumstances will eventually live when everything else is sold.

Madam Speaker! The mixed housing areas that are constantly muttered about always concern these rental areas. No one wants to mix residents with different backgrounds and incomes in the affluent areas. In the villa neighborhoods, nothing should be built, and absolutely not multi-family houses with rental apartments!

In the inner cities, it should be as expensive as possible to live, with high purchase prices for condominiums and proper market rents for rental apartments – all to keep the marginalized people out.

A serious government should focus on ensuring that all municipalities take greater responsibility for housing provision for all residents, regardless of income or background. Even the wealthy municipalities must take this seriously and take their responsibility, which they do not do today.

Greater pressure should be placed on all municipalities to ensure that more affordable rental apartments are built - housing for ordinary people and housing that ordinary people can also afford. In this, the state has an enormously important role to play. Vänsterpartiet wants the government to accelerate the introduction of regional planning in more regions than today.

Madam Speaker! The construction and real estate sector collectively accounts for a very large part of the environmental impact and energy use in society. It is therefore not possible to talk about housing, planning and construction without talking about the great need for a green transition. The climate cannot wait, and to gather the necessary strength, society must dare to lead and show the way through collective solutions.

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.

We also want the renovation and energy efficiency of the existing multi-family housing stock to be seriously initiated. But in times when we more than ever would need state steering instruments for the energy efficiency of multi-family houses, the right-conservative parties instead choose to phase out all such support without replacing it with anything other than the words "we shall build nuclear power".

The phase-out is upsetting in many ways. The demands for energy efficiency have increased in recent years, even from the EU. At the same time, Sweden has a huge stock of multi-family dwellings that are in great need of renovation and energy efficiency. This must be addressed, not for the sake of the EU, but for the sake of the climate.

If all these homes were made energy-efficient, it would mean an enormous difference for society as a whole - not just for individual residents or property owners. Targeted government support is absolutely crucial to address the needs. Not least, it will hit existing tenants hard if there is no support, because it will then be those who are forced to bear the entire bill through their rent bills.

But with a government that increases emissions and also cooperates with a party that this summer goes to the election with the promise to tear up the EU's large legislative package Fit for 55, the future looks very dark.

The criticism of the government's lack of housing policy has become increasingly loud, and it is coming from more and more sources. The housing crisis is massive. Fewer and fewer houses are being built, and unemployment in the industry increases every day.

In their eagerness to show that they are doing something, the government is betting on transforming rules. Simplifications are to solve the crisis, they say. Heavily criticized building rule simplifications that risk leading to windowless rooms in newly built homes and such low ceiling heights that a tall person cannot walk upright compete with other stupid rule simplifications that prevent people with disabilities from living in student rooms on the same terms as everyone else in society.

It is really nothing wrong in itself to review rule systems and laws, but in these cases it risks hitting hard against both people with disabilities and healthy housing, while construction will hardly increase because of these proposals.

Vänsterpartiet wants a society for everyone - for the poor and for the rich, but also for people with disabilities. 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.

Madam Speaker! No housing is being built now. How are we to eradicate homelessness if not with more housing? How will abused women be able to leave the violent men if there is no housing? Where will families who are evicted due to poverty live if there are no rental apartments left with reasonable rents? How will people at all be able to live and live in an acceptable way if there is no housing?

The realistic answer is that the Sweden we live in today has become so unequal and poor that it is almost mocking to the inhabitants for the right-wing parties to talk about new owner-occupied housing movements, built with SD's Sverigehus, as the solution to the situation. Who, Madam Speaker, will be able to afford to live there in today's Poor Sweden? People have no money.

Madam Speaker! To be the one who repeatedly states that it is more rental apartments that people can afford that we must plan for and build feels good in this context, because that is what is required in the reality of Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I cannot today move for any reservations. The committee did not prepare this specific report in the traditional manner, and therefore we have no reservations. Those who wonder what Vänsterpartiet thinks are welcome to go in and look at our previous reservations on the issue.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for the approval of our reservation 8.

We are in a climate crisis, and we already see the consequences of a changed climate today. We need to prepare all of Sweden for a new climate - climate-adapt Sweden. We see flooded basements in Gävle and in Skåne. We see soils that are drying out for our farmers. We have seen roads collapsing due to extreme weather. We must prepare Sweden for a new climate, and this applies in particular to the construction sector and urban planning.

The government has presented a climate adaptation strategy as a communication instead of a bill, and furthermore, delayed. It does not contain at all the level of ambition and the measures that would be needed to prepare the country. In its latest budget, the government also dismantled central authorities' work with climate adaptation when it dismantled funds to both the county administrative boards and MSB.

We in Miljöpartiet want to equip Sweden strongly in a changed climate.

Since 2008, buildings and settlements shall be located on land suitable for the purpose, taking into account, among other things, the risk of accidents, floods, and erosion. However, it is a common problem that old detailed development plans are not tested for suitability. If the municipality does not repeal the old detailed development plan, building permits cannot be denied either, which implies a risk that new construction occurs in areas that are unsuitable from a climate adaptation perspective. Since there is no obligation for municipalities to repeal these old detailed development plans, Miljöpartiet believes that it should be investigated how the plans should be handled in order to minimize the risk of climate-related accidents, floods, and erosion.

The County Administrative Boards have an important role in coordinating, supporting, and monitoring the municipalities' climate work. To ensure climate-adapted planning, we also propose that expert agencies be tasked with developing clear guidelines for the requirements that the County Administrative Boards shall set for the municipalities in the planning processes. Climate adaptation must begin to be fully considered in planning and construction.

Water management is central to climate adaptation. A well-functioning water and sewage system lays the foundation for a functioning and healthy society. The need to renew the water and sewage systems is, however, great all over the country.

Managing stormwater in the ground instead of in the sewer pipes is a crucial measure to protect the sewer network and reduce the need for expansion of more and larger pipes. In many cases, such measures are also simpler and cheaper. However, it is required that the relevant landowner, whether it is a municipality or a private property owner, can take the measures, and in many cases, problems arise regarding the responsibility for the stormwater management.

We therefore consider that a possibility should be introduced to set requirements for property owners to take care of a portion of the stormwater within the property. We also consider that an investigation should be appointed with a mandate to investigate the possibility of regulating the proportion of paved surface within plot land, block land, and public land. To avoid flooding, we must ensure land that allows water to pass through.

Water also needs to be used more efficiently. When we reduce water consumption, we also reduce the need for new water sources and the expansion of water treatment plants and sewage treatment plants. At the same time, we avoid water shortages. We believe that a broad effort is needed to reduce unnecessary water use and therefore propose that all new construction projects shall have a plan to minimize water consumption throughout the building's entire lifespan and that requirements shall be set for water-saving faucets and low-flush toilets during renovations of rental apartments. We also believe that innovative water-saving solutions should be encouraged in new construction.

We need to prepare ourselves for a changed climate, but part of this is also about reducing greenhouse gas emissions so that the climate change we face becomes as mild as possible. Instead, we currently have a government that is significantly increasing greenhouse gas emissions so that Sweden is no longer expected to reach its climate goals, nor its binding climate commitment within the EU. Even here, instead of presenting the climate action plan as a bill, the government has submitted a memorandum to the Riksdag, a memorandum that does not contain measures to significantly reduce emissions but instead shifts the entire responsibility to the next government.

We in Miljöpartiet want Sweden to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, ensure that Sweden fulfills its part of the Paris Agreement and at the same time seize all the opportunities that come with the climate transition, even within the housing and construction sector. Residential construction, in fact, accounts for a significant part of Sweden's climate emissions. We believe that legislation is needed that leads to more sustainable construction.

The construction sector also accounts for one-fifth of greenhouse gas emissions in Sweden. In order to significantly reduce the construction sector's climate impact and the use of new natural resources, we propose that binding requirements for reduced emissions over the entire life cycle of the building, that is, during construction, use, and demolition, be introduced immediately.

The regulation of climate declarations for buildings also needs to be tightened. The climate declaration shall cover the entire building throughout its entire life cycle, including groundworks and renovation, and even demolition shall affect the climate declaration.

To build a sustainable society and reduce our climate impact, we need to transition to a more circular and resource-efficient economy.

Our society faces extensive challenges when it comes to both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and minimizing our resource consumption.

A more sustainable use of resources within the construction sector is a large and important part of this transition, as Swedish buildings are estimated to account for one-fifth of Sweden's total climate emissions.

To promote good resource management in the construction sector, we believe that a quota obligation for the use of reused material in renovation and new construction should be introduced. The requirements for the proportion of reused material should also be increased incrementally.

We also want Boverket to be tasked with investigating how building regulations can be formulated to enable the reuse of building materials to a much greater extent.

Even when it comes to demolition, we need to transition to a more circular and resource-efficient economy. It is almost always best to renovate and reuse things on-site instead of demolishing or replacing them. We need to systematically transition to a more circular construction process where buildings are not demolished unless it is necessary.

The circular economy within the construction sector must be developed. We believe that the conditions for renovation, extension, and preservation of the structure must always be investigated before a demolition permit can be granted. We also propose that requirements for an early material inventory for buildings be introduced in connection with the application for a demolition permit, and requirements that usable construction elements be reused.

The properties that are already built are a valuable resource that we must take care of. To avoid demolitions, we want an investigation to be commissioned with the aim of tightening the requirements for the maintenance of buildings and properties so that they are maintained in usable condition, and that the Planning and Building Act be reviewed to facilitate expansion and renovation instead of demolition.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I would like to say that due to the simplified motion handling this year, I will not be moving for the approval of any of our motions.

However, I want to account for some of the proposals that we Social Democrats have placed on the Riksdag's table but which representatives of the SD government here in the Swedish Riksdag have previously rejected.

Planning and construction, which this committee report is about, is a fundamental part of how, among other things, our residential areas shall look in the future. We do not build only houses; we build communities.

The Planning and Building Act, PBL, is a form of coordination between all stakeholders within community construction. Order and structure shall be weighed against the requirements for fast processes with minimal complications.

The Social Democratic government has driven the work on simplifying regulations, and we take for granted that that work continues. However, we do not see much of it.

Rules that cannot be justified shall be removed, and processes that can be carried out faster shall naturally be conducted accordingly.

At the same time, it is important to point out, especially for the SD government, that regulatory simplifications are not a panacea for housing construction. No one can live in a regulatory simplification. The housing shortage is something that must be built away.

This government has often underlined regulatory simplification as one of the most important housing policy initiatives it intends to work with. Total political consensus prevails on trying to formulate rules as simple as possible, but as expected, it has proven to be easier said than done.

Boverket has recently had to postpone its proposal for new building regulations after receiving very harsh criticism for its proposal presented so far. A major risk with Boverket's proposal is that unclear rules hinder rather than promote construction.

Madam Speaker! Many detailed plans are appealed across Sweden. In addition to the construction being delayed, the long periods of waiting can also ultimately affect housing prices.

The problem is, of course, not that people appeal. It is a right in a democracy to have the opportunity to point out problems and have one's case examined and that a proper assessment of, for example, detailed development plans is made.

The problem is that there are no time limits restricting how long appeals may take. Despite changes having been made - several have been made - to shorten processing times, the process with appeals still takes far too long.

We Social Democrats believe that time limits need to be set. Among other things, there should be a limit for partial distribution, that is, a limit on how much time is given to collect a decision. It does not exist today.

Furthermore, limited right to appeal could be ensured through a narrower circle of co-owners, limited possibilities for appealing building permits when they are in accordance with the detailed plan, a limited number of appeals that can be made in a case, and so on. But all of this must, of course, be weighed against the requirements for legal certainty and the individual's right to object to decisions made.

We Social Democrats therefore see a need for a review of these issues with a clear focus on limiting the possibilities for appeals in order to facilitate sustainable societal development.

Madam Speaker! I had quite high expectations for this debate on planning and construction already last year, when we began processing the motions concerning the area. The government has had a high profile and spoken of a strong start for the housing policy, but it has rather led to a standstill for new construction. To quote one of the actors in the housing market when he showed the sales figures last year: The patient is dead.

The SD government speaks warmly of small house construction, but its passivity now means that small house companies are actually going bankrupt and that several thousand employees are being laid off within the small house sector.

At the same time, a total of 1,714 construction companies and contractors have been struck out during 2023, according to UC. The number of bankruptcies in Sweden increased to the highest since the financial crisis in the 90s, and unemployment in the Byggnads a-kassa has increased by 67 percent since last summer.

That is why I, and very many others, had expected the government base to be able to 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 [goods].

Instead, nothing new is presented. Much is talked about, but there are no proposals on the floor of the Riksdag from the SD government on how housing construction should get started again.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party's spokesperson is not here, but I still intended to quote him from last year's debate. We are resting on his back, he said then, and when inflation goes down we need to be prepared.

Inflation has now gone down. What is the SD government waiting for, and how has one prepared? There is nothing on the table.

This passivity means that an additional 1,750 construction companies risk being swept up in a wave of bankruptcies ahead, according to an article in Dagens industri on March 20 this year - and this despite the fact that interest rates are expected to be lowered during the year. Half of the parliamentary term has almost passed, and when we look at the government's list of propositions, we can only conclude that it is two lost years.

Throughout the entire time since the current SD government took office, we have heard how the Minister for Housing has hit the ground running with structural changes to increase and accelerate housing construction. This head start has not yet resulted in a single proposal on the floor of the Riksdag.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by underlining that the housing shortage is something that needs to be built away. We will not solve this with new construction alone, but it is important that we build new homes – and it requires homes that ordinary people can demand. Housing construction has collapsed, and according to many assessors, it is set to be seven difficult years. Increased housing construction is a matter of the financing issue, and it is currently conspicuous by its absence. It therefore requires more measures than just regulatory simplifications.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! In recent months, we have had a series of debates in the chamber regarding housing policy. Tonight's debate is primarily about planning and construction. Planning and construction is a comprehensive area that concerns planning in many respects, from the state level via the regions and county administrative boards down to the municipal level.

When it comes to regional planning, Stockholm, Skåne, and Halland counties have a regional housing plan which means that there is an overview of what the county's needs for housing construction look like. The municipalities are not bound by the regional planning that is developed, but it creates good conditions to actually work across municipal boundaries regarding the need for housing construction. This is something that the Sverigedemokraterna have spoken about since the investigation was released. This should also be introduced in other parts of the country; we believe that it would improve the conditions.

In principle, however, housing construction is a municipal responsibility. That is where the housing is built. We are to create the conditions so that more housing can be built. Here, one also needs to look at the county administrative boards' work in cooperation with the municipalities to increase housing construction, and that is something we see the government is currently mapping out. They are looking at how the cooperation works and can be developed.

Madam Speaker! The Government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has identified an area that is neglected, namely the construction of small houses. We know that many are demanding this attractive form of housing and that increased small house construction could also have many other effects on the housing market. Among other things, it would provide the opportunity to initiate move chains where people leave behind a cheaper rental apartment in favor of other, economically weaker, households.

Detached houses are also very attractive because they are a pleasant form of housing - perhaps especially for our families with small children. Therefore, the question of creating opportunities to build more detached houses is important to follow, and the Sweden Democrats do so together with the government. That is also why we have introduced a planning incentive for municipalities for detached house construction in our budget. We are also mapping out buildable land for detached houses so that the reform can get started faster and the share of detached houses in housing construction can increase.

Madam Speaker! Aesthetics and design are an important issue when we talk about housing construction and planning. That we build beautiful residential areas and homes is crucial for how we will see our societies in the future. The houses we build today will stand there for a very long time to come, and therefore we need to have a thought behind what we build.

Here it is important that we have an increased citizen dialogue to ensure to create participation in what is being built and a greater satisfaction with the residential areas and housing that are being built. Thereby we can reduce appeals and other discussions when it concerns new production and new residential areas in our municipalities. It is of the utmost importance to weigh in the public interest so that we primarily get the housing and housing environments that are in demand. There, the citizen dialogue is crucial, and it is something we need to look closer at and create the conditions to carry out.

Strengthened cultural heritage competence and cultural planning are areas where the municipalities would need greater support from the state, in the form of a stimulus, in order to be able to continue working with the residential areas to be built and to have a holistic approach when residential areas are planned.

The design of the city center and the image of the municipality one lives in is extremely important and part of the identity for those who live in the area. Therefore, it is important that the municipalities are given the conditions to design the municipality from a historical perspective, and we also know that this is often what the discussions are about when new constructions – and even decorations in the public environment – are planned.

Another important issue being prepared within the Government Offices, where there is also a notification from the Riksdag, concerns this matter of moving old buildings and that new construction requirements shall not be imposed when an old building is moved. The Government has tasked the County Administrative Boards to look at which deviations from the new construction requirements are made in the municipalities when moving old residences.

This is an important issue to enable relocation. We have a clear example in the form of Kiruna, where many dwellings are being moved due to circumstances that are difficult to contend with when mining operations are expanded. Swedish legislation should not prevent the possibility of retaining the old cultural heritage in the form of residential buildings; rather, one should be able to preserve what one once had.

The safety aspect should, of course, be included in the planning process from the very beginning, but it must also be included in the area planning that is carried out based on the residential areas we have in Sweden today. It should be based on a national action plan to create conditions for more safe residential areas in Sweden. Here we have the investigation on strengthened safety in the built environment, that is, BID cooperation. It contributes to the important safety aspect together with planning of construction where that aspect is at the foundation.

Madam Speaker! The economy is a part of this – when we have planned for construction, we must of course also create conditions for people to take part in the new production that is created. There we have the committee that is reviewing the amortization requirement to enable more households to demand the housing that is being built, along with something that the Sverigedemokraterna are monitoring, namely start loans for first-time buyers. I hope that we will soon see a proposal from the government on that issue.

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

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

Anna Vedin (M)

Madam Speaker! At my home on the island of Marstrand, the shore protection is a major and significant issue. As a resident of Marstrand, I want the community to live year-round and that there should be a school and shop as well as companies and businesses so that it is possible to work in the community. The fact that Marstrand is also a major tourist attraction where nature, the sea and the fortress attract thousands of visitors every year means that the balance between development and preservation is put to the test.

Having long-term planning conditions for how and where one builds in our municipalities is a must for social planning to function. But also where one must not build and on what grounds is part of the conditions. Comprehensive plans, PBL, preservation plans, shore protection, and nature reserve restrictions are something the municipalities must constantly base their social planning on. That these plans and laws harmonize with Sweden's development is a prerequisite for the survival of Marstrand and many other places.

The physical planning, i.e., how land and water areas shall be used, is shown in the comprehensive plan that every municipality has. It is that which regulates where one may build, what one may build within different areas, and where one may not build. In order for the long-term structure for the physical planning to function in Sweden, an inquiry has been commissioned with the aim of looking at a comprehensive plan for Sweden. Boverket has, on behalf of the government, produced a guidance for comprehensive planning as part of the work to achieve the environmental quality goal Good built environment. This is positive, as the comprehensive planning can contribute to achieving the national climate goals.

Madam Speaker! We know that seven out of ten want to live in detached houses. To achieve this, more buildable land is needed. Therefore, I am pleased that the government has given such a mandate. State-owned land needs to be alienated, and the municipalities must identify suitable buildable land. In order to be able to find buildable land, both on land and in the water, the shore protection as it is designed today is a major limitation. The Tidö parties have, however, an agreement regarding shore protection that ensures that towns can live year-round. I am very pleased about that.

The regulations must be simpler so that they favor construction. The rules for possibilities will result in a simplification for the construction market as the requirements on how one builds become more flexible. For example, the ceiling height does not always need to be 2.40 but can be 2.30, which can mean that it is possible to renovate an older property without completely rebuilding it.

The Government has tasked Boverket with developing the work on the transition to a circular economy in the construction and real estate sector to contribute to achieving Sweden's environmental and climate goals. According to the assignment, Boverket shall, among other things, analyze how the demolition of existing buildings can be avoided and how they can be reused in their entirety, as well as analyze what this implies for the choice of different building materials.

That things often take a long time is a recurring point, ranging from long building permit processes to the Land Survey's long processing times and costs. In order to reduce lead times, the government has appointed a productivity commission to look at and investigate the issue.

Madam Speaker! At home on my island, it is what I have said that provides the conditions for the community to be able to live year-round. The older properties can continue to be period-typical buildings, young people can be given the opportunity to stay, and businesses that are dependent on water and piers can exist. The tourism industry can survive, with hiking trails, boating, and restaurants that attract visitors from all corners of the world. The school, the shop, and the library can remain because there are people who live and work in the community year-round. Creating long-term, good planning conditions, as the government does, is a condition for me and many others to be able to live and reside year-round where we want.

Madam Speaker! I hereby move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker and dear colleagues! We are now considering motions from last autumn regarding planning and construction. I pondered quite a bit on what I should say today and whether I should simply copy my speech from last time. To be honest, not much has happened in this area despite the government's promise of a quick start.

We have had a number of debates about housing construction and the fact that it has crashed, with shockwaves and bankruptcies as a result. The entire debate has now been reduced to being about regulatory simplifications, but not even that have we seen any smoke of here in the chamber.

Just as my colleague Leif Nysmed pointed out, it is concerning that the question of financing is not addressed at all. In at least my world, it is decisive for us to be able to get more housing in place. Somewhere we must realize that it doesn't matter what rules we have if we still cannot afford to build what needs to be built. Above all, we must consider how we can achieve a productivity increase and lower costs in production so that people can afford to demand what is being built.

We have a situation with sharply increased construction material prices. Unfortunately, the circular economy has not fully taken hold in construction, and the productivity increase in the industry has been virtually non-existent for decades. This is not being addressed anywhere, and I think that is deeply regrettable.

We are, of course, following the Building Permit Investigation and Boverket's work with new rules. In our motions, we have proposed that the appeal processes should be reviewed with the aim of shortening them and ensuring that it is primarily the stakeholders who can appeal. We also want to see some timeframes so that the lead times can be reduced. It is said that it takes nine years from planning to finished housing. One would gain a lot from reducing the time somewhat.

We look forward to the investigation on shore protection, which unfortunately was neglected during the last parliamentary term. The Centre Party believes that this could have been a way to address the countryside's problems and the current situation. We still hope, however, that a government bill will be laid before the Riksdag.

After 3 minutes and 48 seconds, I realize that there is not so much more to say in this debate. I conclude by saying that we also had a number of proposals, so it was not only Miljöpartiet who thought that one should reserve themselves. But we do have a procedure in the committee with simplified preparation, which means that I am now standing here and trying to make the clock tick a bit faster so that it looks good.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! If the electricity is turned off at home, most people go crazy quite quickly. Should the electricity be turned off for a large part of the population for a week or two, the headlines and much of the mass media attention would be about this. Does snow removal for 24 hours occupy the media's attention to such a mild degree that nothing else breaks through? But the fact that we have a housing market that we in many parts have handed over to municipalities and authorities who, in their eagerness to do right and proper, create a dysfunctional housing market, we yawn at and move on in life as citizens.

Many of us, including myself, say that housing policy deserves a larger discussion and greater attention precisely because we have a dysfunctional housing market. The planning is going far too slowly, and the construction is both going slowly and is far too expensive, I think.

This fact has, as we all know, existed for many years. Regardless of which government is in power, it has continued to be the same. Therefore, I am very pleased that this government is trying to take the long-term guidelines and is trying to do something about the dysfunctional housing market. It is not one large measure that does this, but it is many small measures that are to help get the market functioning again.

Many here have raised the planning bonus, which goes to municipalities to convert commercial premises into housing. This and the bonus for planning for small houses are examples of good incentives for municipalities to think not only about rental properties and condominiums but also about small houses, which are actually in demand.

I am also pleased that Lantmäteriet has been tasked with providing a roadmap to continue digitizing the community construction process, which I believe will yield unforeseen benefits in the future. It will not only facilitate, simplify and accelerate the planning process, but new areas of application will be discovered and new companies will emerge.

Lantmäteriet has also been tasked with transitioning to coordinate-determined property boundaries, which will facilitate and streamline the subdivision work. These different matters, together with the fact that a mandate has been given to review state land to be sold for housing construction, mean that one gets a bit further along.

A productivity commission has also been launched to review the skyrocketing costs of housing construction. Just as my Center Party colleague said, we cannot build housing that is far too expensive for people to be able to live in. Something must be done about the fact that we are building housing that is far too expensive and that prices are increasing far beyond wage increases, which means that we get housing that no one can live in, that no one can rent, and that no one can own.

But is this enough? Of course not! More pressure must be put on the municipalities regarding land availability and how the process works. It is completely unreasonable that as an applicant at the beginning of the process, one does not know what is expected of them or how much time will be taken for the entire process until one can start building their house.

Planning and construction

It is also completely unsatisfactory that one as a citizen in one municipality has to pay a fee of approximately 5,000 kronor and in another municipality 25,000 kronor in fee for a service that is exactly the same. A more transparent fee that is more linked to the actual cost might be a step in the right direction, so that the municipalities cannot include just whatever they want in a building permit fee.

We must also let the county administrative boards work more boldly with the municipalities to find suitable locations for construction, as well as ensure that planning and construction are carried out based on the needs that exist in a region or municipality. The county administrative boards are our partner that can help ensure that the regions actually plan based on the needs that exist.

In short, we have unfortunately, at the national level, been in a state of pause for far too long and have not addressed the structural problems that exist in the housing market, both large and small. But it is time to dare to believe that it is possible to change and that we will have a better future.

I therefore move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 April.)

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