Response to interpellation 2023/24:439 on the review of the Planning and Building Act
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that the permit processes need to be shortened, become more efficient and predictable 1 2. KD argues that rules in the Planning and Building Act as well as the Environmental Code should be significantly simplified 1 and that the investigation on shortened permit processes is important to address fundamental problems regarding costs and lead times 2. KD argues that the courts need resources to decide on cases within a reasonable time 3 and that the budget for the courts is reinforced with half a billion this year 4. KD emphasizes that land and environmental courts need resources to secure staffing and rapid processing 4. S wants a functioning permit process that is long-term and holds over several mandate periods. S considers that constant changes are counterproductive. S considers it important to review processes in order to be able to handle large establishments in the future 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Johan Andersson has asked me if I am prepared to set time limits for the appeals process in planning matters in order to thereby facilitate the establishment of new facilities. Johan Andersson has also asked me if I am prepared to contribute to reviewing the process for the service of decisions, that is, a limit on how much time is given to collect a decision.
The Government considers that the permit processes need to be shortened and become more efficient and predictable. The planning processes shall be shortened, and the rules in, among others, the Planning and Building Act (2010:900) and the Environmental Code shall be simplified significantly.
The building permit investigation has, in its final report, in addition to the proposals it has put forward regarding the process for building permits, proposed a review of the procedural provisions governing the judicial review of decisions according to the planning and building law framework. The investigation's proposals are now being prepared in the Government Offices.
The Government has also appointed an inquiry into shortened and simplified permit processes according to the Environmental Code. It has, among other things, been tasked with investigating how processing times can be shortened in connection with appeals. The assignment also covers decisions according to the Planning and Building Act. The assignment shall be reported by December 15, 2024, at the latest.
Johan Andersson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Housing for the answer.
I thought I would begin with a description of the reason why I wrote this interpellation. As the Minister for Housing is aware, I am also active in Motala municipality. Motala is located quite close to Mullsjö, so I believe the Minister for Housing is familiar with the terrain.
In 2009, the municipality created a concept program for Varamobaden with a four-kilometer-long sandy beach and the possibility to exploit the area in different parts. We did solid work with planning programs from the municipality's side and followed all the rules of the art. We acquired facilities and land to be able to have control over the area for potential future exploitation. There was a very broad anchoring among the municipal citizens regarding the concept program that existed.
In 2016, a letter of intent was signed with the Danish company Lalandia, which works with various visitor facilities around Denmark and was interested in exploiting or establishing itself also in Sweden. This work was very appreciated among the people of Motala, who saw the opportunity to get more jobs and a large facility with 550 beds. A bathing facility would be built where the municipality would provide a municipal swimming hall and Lalandia would build an adventure pool.
Parallel to this, the municipality began work on five detailed development plans which started being processed according to the rules in the Planning and Building Act. They ended up, which is natural, in an appeal process that is still ongoing - the plans have not yet been adopted.
The reason I wrote this interpellation was that Lalandia announced in January 2024 that they chose to cancel their establishment in Motala, among other reasons, due to long processing times regarding construction. This was, of course, a very great disappointment for the people of Motala and for many who have been involved in this process. There were certainly various reasons for this, but one reason they emphasized was that there was a very long processing time for the detailed plans and the review process in the instances we have today according to the legislation in force.
In the Minister's response, he refers to a number of ongoing investigations. It is well enough that things are happening in this area, but I wonder: When will there be a delivery on this from the Government Offices? The first investigation referred to has actually already submitted its report to the Government Offices. When can we expect to receive finished proposals in a government bill to the Chamber that we can process and examine further?
Leif Nysmed (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer.
The Social Democrats are keen that we have a functioning permit process, just as my party colleague Johan Andersson just pointed out. The important thing in a review of the Planning and Building Act is that it becomes long-term and holds over several parliamentary terms. It is also something that the market clearly demands.
The Minister has, on several occasions during recent years, spoken about a head start in this area and about the importance of structural reforms. Of this, we in the opposition have yet to see anything.
During my ten years in the Committee on Civil Affairs, I have on numerous occasions listened to the desire of authorities, municipalities, and market actors for clear and long-term rules of the game, a desire that we should not change the rules of the game for the sake of it. Constant changes are counterproductive and all too often create more work and uncertainty, which in itself leads to longer permit processes. Therefore, we believe that it is important, if major changes are to be made within, for example, the Planning and Building Act, that there is a broad majority in the Riksdag for such changes so that they hold over mandate periods.
The Minister and I will very shortly have a debate on a housing commission regarding the acute situation within the construction and small-house industry. I mention this, Madam Speaker, so that my next question is not misunderstood and so that we do not mix them up. Very often, many parties, both municipalities and companies, request that the parties reach an agreement across block boundaries and across mandates regarding the long-term rules of the game. My question to the Minister is whether such talks can actually take place.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for the commitment to the issue. I would also like to thank you for the interpellation that Johan Andersson has raised. Indeed, Motala is not so far from where I myself grew up, so I am familiar with the terrain – I believe that was the expression Johan Andersson used. At the same time, it does not fall to the government or an individual minister to comment on individual cases. It is an ongoing process, as Johan Andersson also emphasizes.
Let me, however, from the issue raised by Johan Andersson, repeat what I said in my response, Madam Speaker: The Government considers that the permit processes need to be shortened. It needs to become more efficient and more predictable, which is also demonstrated by this debate.
The investigation that has been appointed is precisely about shortening and simplifying the permit processes according to the Environmental Code. The time for handling appeals is not regulated in the Planning and Building Act, and therefore it is important to also look at the Environmental Code. The purpose is, as Leif Nysmed is pointing out, to address the structural problems that I believe exist and that there has long been a broad consensus around. This is truly important for addressing some of the fundamental problems when it comes to the costs and lead times for construction, regardless of whether it is facilities or housing. Therefore, this investigation will be important.
The investigator shall, among other things, investigate how EU legislation is implemented, how the permit process can be divided in other ways than today, how predictability can be increased, how processing times can be shortened, and how the circle of those who can appeal judgments and decisions according to the Environmental Code can be reduced, which in itself is an important task to see what can be done in the process to speed up the whole thing. The investigator shall also investigate increased requirements for permit approvals. This will be an important basis.
The investigation shall report its conclusions no later than December 15, 2024. It is therefore too early to answer Johan Andersson's question regarding when a government bill can be on the Riksdag's table. No one, however, would be happier than I if we could have as broad a consensus as possible regarding the long-term rules of the game for construction and how one can achieve even higher tempo in this—obviously without cutting corners; that is important—and obtain a good and functioning permit process, as Leif Nysmed was pointing out.
The most important thing here is the pace of the work and that action is taken on this. That is why this investigation has been commissioned early in the mandate period. This is one of the major areas that needs to be addressed, which the interpellation illustrates.
I believe we are in agreement on the problem picture. Now we have an investigation in place, and the government has a majority in the Riksdag for its policy. I would like to see that we have even broader support, and there will be plenty of opportunities for that type of dialogue once the investigation has submitted its conclusions in December.
Johan Andersson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Andreas Carlson for the answer to the interpellation and, above all, for his further accounts of the ongoing process.
Another question concerns the planning management itself. I am very well aware of who does what in Swedish politics, but I just want to mention that Motala municipality has spent a very large amount of money on the planning processes linked to this, both those that have not been appealed and those that have been processed. So that is the situation. At the same time, it is naturally a balancing act, because I also think it is obvious that one should have their case reviewed. I assume the Minister feels the same way. It is a matter of finding a balance in what comes forward as a result of the investigation.
This question has been raised before. We did a great deal during our eight years in government. Much has been implemented, and much is ready to be decided upon. Among other things, the minister himself refers in his answer to the Building Permit Inquiry, whose proposals are ready to be handled. I therefore find it a bit difficult to see what one is waiting for.
Now, housing construction has decreased in the country, which is not good. It also means that one will surely free up some resources in our municipalities when it comes to building permit officers, planning architects and so on. It is, however, important that the municipalities speed up and ensure they have that readiness when the demand comes for establishments and not least housing construction.
We also see great concerns today in the northern part of the country - perhaps not so much with appeal processes but rather with long processing times.
My follow-up question to the Minister is based on the fact that it concerns two parts. Firstly, it concerns the legislation, which is being reviewed and where it is hoped that sharp proposals will be delivered – at the latest directly after December when the investigation is complete and the government has presented a proposition. I expect that you will do so. Secondly, it concerns the resources for the judiciary. We see that there are very long processing times in certain parts. It takes a very long time before things are effected.
My follow-up question concerns the resources for the judiciary and then explicitly linked to those courts that fall under the Minister's area of responsibility with the Planning and Building Act, environmental legislation, and other parts.
How is the government working with that? Can we expect anything regarding the supplementary budget? And not least, can we expect anything in the autumn budget in the future? These are questions where I would like to hear the Minister's view. When can we expect a decision?
Leif Nysmed (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for the answer. I still think we have quite good consensus in that our goal direction is heading in the same direction.
I want to take over from where Johan Andersson just finished, regarding the courts. We have received a report that the processing times at the various courts have increased. I believe that the Minister has also received that report. Whether they need more resources or not is not something that needs to be investigated. It is a resource issue.
I would like to repeat Johan's question. Does the government intend to allocate more resources to speed up the process already here and now or as soon as possible? It does not need to be referred or investigated in any way.
The change during the previous parliamentary term, when the County Administrative Board was removed as the first instance of appeal, was made precisely to shorten processing times. When the Committee on Civil Affairs visited the Land and Environment Court during the previous parliamentary term, they reported that although they had added time for the processing times that the County Administrative Boards had had, the total times were shortened. But it is required that one invests in the Land and Environment Courts so that they can manage the increased processing they receive as a result of the County Administrative Boards not having performed preliminary work for them.
I am, therefore, a bit worried when I see that the processing times of the Land and Environment Courts are increasing. It is possibly a resource issue. If not, I hope that the government has a plan for exactly that.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! The allocation of resources to Sweden's courts is obviously important for several reasons, not least in light of what we are discussing here today. In order for the judicial activity to have the public's trust and for the courts to be able to fulfill their duties, they need resources. Their resources need to continue to increase so that they can have adequate staffing, be able to decide cases and matters within a reasonable time, and ensure safety for everyone who is in court.
In order to provide Sweden's courts with good planning conditions, the government has therefore added further resources through the budget bill. I do not rule out that further reinforcements may be needed, Madam Speaker. The process is such that I cannot, in this chamber, anticipate the processes we have for the budget. But I want to point out the investments that have already been made by the previous government but also by the current government on the expansion of Sweden's courts.
Regarding the different parts that Johan Andersson highlighted in his previous contribution, the investigation into shortening and simplifying permit processes according to the Environmental Code, which I referred to, shall simultaneously describe what consequences the proposals will have for planning according to the Planning and Building Act and whether there are other such permit processes that should be reviewed in the same way in the future. That answers, in part, the questions that Johan Andersson has asked. There needs to be a balance, and one needs to look at the issue broadly. That is, so to speak, part of the assignment, which is pressing and important.
I have great confidence that we will receive a basis that will allow us to move forward with proposals to be able to step by step shorten lead times and simplify the processes, so that one does not have such long processing times as today.
There are several parts. In this answer, I have addressed both the resource allocation to the courts and that which is affected by the investigation that is now working on the government's assignment.
Johan Andersson (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister again for the answer. It was at least somewhat clarifying, even though I might have expected more when it comes to the economy and other aspects of the courts' operations.
As I said initially in my first speech, it has been a long process. The municipal citizens and the entire region have truly expected that one would reach the finish line with the process. But that has not happened.
I believe it is extremely important to review processes and other things, if not otherwise for the purpose of being able to handle large establishments in the future. Sweden is a country that wants to work with establishments. This is what both Andreas Carlson's government and my government that sat earlier think. It has been a prioritized issue regardless of who has been Minister for Enterprise.
In this debate, we have not reflected so much on the circle of the appeals process, i.e., who are the stakeholders. That is also an interesting question. I have follow-up questions for the Minister for Housing there.
How does the government view that part? How will it look moving forward? I understand that one cannot specify exactly, as it is to be investigated and handled. But it is an important and pressing issue. It shows, not least, the process that we have experienced in Motala. There, there have been five detailed plans, of which not all but a number have been appealed for various reasons and by different stakeholders and organizations.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! The budget for the courts is being strengthened. This year, it is half a billion more than last year. Next year, 2025, it will be 7.9 billion and the year after that 8.2 billion directed to Sweden's courts. That is the figure that exists in the current budget. But I do not, as I said, exclude that further reinforcements may be needed for Sweden's courts.
The government's very clear focus on combating crime is a part that, of course, calls for additional resource reinforcements of the entire justice system, but the parts we are talking about today, not least assessments from the Land and Environment Court, are of course also important. They need to have the necessary resources at all times to ensure good staffing so that, in that respect, they can maintain as good and fast processing as possible.
We were a bit into the circle of the appeals process. The investigation shall, among other things, investigate increased requirements for leave to appeal and whether there are grounds to limit the circle of those who may appeal judgments or decisions that are reviewed by the Land and Environment Court. I believe that Johan Andersson and the members of the chamber think it is a good order that if one is to make those types of intrusive changes, they need to be investigated thoroughly.
The investigation was commissioned early in the mandate period, precisely because it is an urgent issue. But I believe we agree that the order should be such that it is not something that we decide on here in the Swedish Riksdag after a coffee break. It needs to be investigated thoroughly, of course. At the same time, the pace in that type of investigation needs to be as high as it possibly can be. Therefore, I have stated that we will wait for the assignment to be presented in December. After that, I look forward to a good dialogue on the issue.
I would like to thank you for the commitment and for the interpellation.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.