Response to interpellation 2025/26:194 on the effects for municipalities of building permit simplifications
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers the building permit reform to be the largest in 15 years and increases freedom for property owners through reduced administrative hassle 1. KD argues that supervision cases will only increase marginally, that the economic consequences for the municipalities will be limited 1 and that property owners are capable of taking responsibility 2 3 4. KD argues that more power and decision-making opportunities are given through simplifications 4 and that they will continue to simplify for the individual 4. S argues that the reform moves the control to after the fact, which means more supervision and more interventions 5. S claims that the state makes the decisions while the municipalities are left to bear the cost 5 and that the consequences for the municipalities can be devastating 6. S argues that the reform destroys the municipalities' planning and that the state must take financial responsibility 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Denis Begic has asked me if I intend to ensure that the municipalities do not need to compensate the government's building permit reform through increased taxes or cuts in other activities if the costs for supervision increase.
The government has launched the largest reform of the building permit rules in 15 years. It has become easier to build new, renovate, and extend. The administrative hassle has decreased and the freedom for individual property owners has increased. Individuals who have been in contact with the Government Offices have, overall, been positive towards the reform. It is also clear that there is a great interest among the general public.
It is true that criticism has been directed at the relaxations in the permit and reporting requirements in the new planning and building regulations. The criticism is largely based on the perception that the municipalities' supervision will increase to the same extent as the preliminary assessment decreases.
The government and I do not share that view. The government's assessment is that the measures that have now been exempted from preliminary review typically do not involve an unacceptable environmental impact for, for example, neighbors. Furthermore, there are reasons to assume that the individual property owner develops their property in a careful and responsible manner in accordance with the regulations. In contrast to the critical referral bodies, the government has therefore assessed that the number of inspection cases will only increase marginally and that the direct economic consequences for the municipalities in this regard will therefore be limited.
The municipalities have an important task to help individuals do the right thing within the framework of their advisory activities. To support the municipalities, Boverket was given a special assignment in 2025 to develop its PBL Knowledge Bank guidance based on the new regulatory framework. Individuals can also access Boverket's guidance, which should also contribute to ensuring that the number of supervisory cases does not increase more than marginally. There is also an opportunity to voluntarily apply for permission if, as a property owner, one is unsure whether a measure is exempt from a permit or not.
Denis Begic (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
The interpellation is not about whether building permit rules should be simplified or not. It is about responsibility, about financing, and about the difference between the government's assumptions and the municipalities' reality.
The background to my question is concrete. In the newspaper Villaägaren, it is reported that Örebro kommun, my home municipality, expects increased supervision costs of between 1.5 and 2 million kronor per year. The newspaper writes: ”Villaägaren har upprepade gånger sökt ansvarigt departement för att få svar på hur regeringen tänkt sig att en ökad tillsyn ska finansieras, men de har tyvärr inte återkommit.”
That is why I asked the question about the economic responsibility. The Minister describes the reform as the largest in 15 years. It is said to reduce administrative costs and increase freedom for the individual. But almost all major referral bodies point to the same thing: When the preliminary review is removed, the control is shifted to occur ex post. This means more supervision, more advice, and more interventions when errors have already been committed.
This is not my personal opinion, but rather conclusions from municipalities, county administrative boards, Land and Environment Courts, Sveriges Arkitekter, Villaägarna, Bostadsrätterna, KTH, Skatteverket and so on. It will therefore result in more advice and more interventions. It is difficult to find a broader consensus in the referral criticism than in just this issue.
The Minister, however, dismisses the overall picture and argues that the supervision will only increase marginally. It is an assertion, but no calculations are presented, there is no impact assessment, and there are no statements on what happens if the reality turns out to be different.
Here the core problem arises: The supervision must not be fee-financed. The municipalities say that the workload does not decrease but changes from preventive work to reactive supervision.
In practice, this means that the state makes the decisions while the municipalities bear the cost. When the municipalities are not compensated, only three alternatives remain: increased taxes, cuts in other activities, or simply reduced supervision.
The Minister refers in his answer to the National Board of Housing's guidance and the assumption that property owners act responsibly. But guidance does not replace staff, and legislation cannot be based on hopes that everyone always does the right thing.
My question to the Minister therefore remains: Where is the state's responsibility for the economic consequences that this reform risks having for the municipalities?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Denis Begic, for the question!
I have answered the question, and the answer remains that the government makes a different assessment than several of the referral bodies, based on the fact that the measures that are exempted from preliminary review typically do not involve an unacceptable environmental impact.
It is about expanding to a greater extent, but it is also about the possibility of building a so-called attefallshus without prior review and removing the notification requirement for it. However, it is linked to the requirement of 4 ½ meters from the property boundary according to the existing regulations.
Based on how the approximately 40 changes have been applied previously, i.e., when there were pre-examination requirements for them, the government's assessment is that these are typically measures that do not involve an unacceptable impact on, for example, neighbors.
There are also, as I said, strong reasons for the individual property owner to take care of their house, to expand in a careful manner and to be diligent with the regulatory framework. If one is unsure, there is extensive advice available through the funds that the government has allocated to Boverket to update the PBL Knowledge Bank. If one is still unsure, one can submit a voluntary application for permission and have their case reviewed.
Everything will not go to ruin just because one rolls back a bit of the municipal bureaucracy and power and gives it to the individual. We trust that ordinary people can make wise decisions, but it is of course also based on the fact that as a property owner, one wants to do the right thing and wants to ensure that the value of the property is maintained and not make changes that affect it.
It is simply a matter of rolling back a bit of the power and bureaucracy that has been placed on the municipalities for these simple measures, which typically have no unacceptable impact. Through this, we can also facilitate the municipal bureaucracy.
The number of permit cases is estimated to decrease by up to 40 percent. It is a change that can relieve the administration in the municipalities and significantly shorten remaining permit processes. That fewer cases of a simpler nature need to be pre-examined frees up time for the municipalities to manage other permit cases within the statutory time limit. One simply gets more time to work with the more complicated cases and can reach a result in them earlier. It is an important link in shortening lead times in the construction process, while we simultaneously carry out a massive simplification of rules and a large freedom reform for the individual property owner.
I am convinced that the individual property owner is both capable of and has a strong interest in taking responsibility for ensuring that what is built on their own property follows the regulations and that necessary consideration is taken for the surroundings.
Denis Begic (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister's response is based on a clear premise: that the number of supervisory cases will not increase significantly. But it is precisely this premise that the heavy referral bodies question.
The municipalities, which are ultimately responsible for the supervision, describe a different reality than the Minister. They argue that supervision in hindsight is more resource-intensive than preliminary review. It requires investigation, site visits, and sometimes legal processes when errors have already been committed.
The other day, Mr. Speaker, I was sitting with some acquaintances. One of them told me: Now I am finally going to be able to expand my garage! Then I asked: Why? Well, now I no longer need to apply for a building permit, he answered.
This person had previously been rejected because the construction would exceed by one meter or something similar on a building plot. Now, however, he would be allowed to build because it is no longer necessary to apply for a building permit.
Then I said: That is not correct. All rules are exactly the same as before. However, you can be subject to supervision. Otherwise, you risk both being fined and having to demolish the garage that you have built.
This shows the core of the problem. The reform does not change the regulatory framework. It changes who bears the risk.
It is therefore not just about the municipalities' finances. It is also about the individual's finances. When the controls are carried out only in hindsight, the risk increases that people make mistakes without realizing it. The consequences can become very costly, actually devastating for some.
The Minister refers to the possibility of voluntarily applying for a building permit. But it is precisely those supervisory cases that concern the municipalities that arise when people do not realize that they should have applied for a permit or made a notification. That is why the preliminary review exists.
What I am missing in the Minister's response is the following message: What will the government do if the oversight needs do not turn out to be marginal? How will the reform be followed up? And is there any readiness to adjust the funding for the municipalities if this turns out to be something very large?
That one carries out such a comprehensive reform without taking these issues into account is very difficult for me to understand. Is one to leave the municipalities and the individuals alone with that risk? Or is the government and the Council of State prepared to look at the consequences and see what could be done if they become large?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Denis Begic is absolutely right that this is a comprehensive reform. It is a massive simplification of rules, one of the biggest changes in 15 years in the building permit regulations. Some claim that one can go even further back in time, depending on how one compares.
The reason is that we see a need to provide increased opportunities for the individual property owner to more easily take measures such as expansion and addition of a simpler character. If one is uncertain, there is a solid basis to consult in the PBL Knowledge Bank. The Government has also allocated funds to be able to develop that platform based on the new regulatory framework. As we have also touched upon, there is also the possibility, if one is uncertain, to voluntarily apply for a permit.
I note that there is a commitment from Denis Begic on the issue. And it is not only Denis Begic who is committed; this is a very appreciated reform. Very many are asking questions to the municipality and Boverket and also to the Government Offices and the department.
Of course, one needs to go in and look at the circumstances where one is, in the individual case, and then it is the property owner who remains responsible. One is obviously responsible for following the regulatory framework. Our assessment is that the property owners are capable of this and that there is advice and support available to be able to make a well-balanced decision on how to proceed if one wants to expand, add to, or remodel.
I also note that the Social Democrats, in their follow-up motion to the bill, want to go in the other direction. We want to remove the reporting requirement entirely for, for example, attefallshus, complementary housing, complementary buildings, and the extension of single-family houses, but the Social Democrats want to reintroduce this. I find it a bit worrying, given that there is now such a large backing and such great support among those we have been in contact with regarding these proposals. People think it is positive that it will now be easier to make an extension. One will not have to report it as is today and will therefore also not have to pay the cost for this that exists today.
The Social Democrats now want to reintroduce the notification requirement. The investigation that forms the basis for the bill pointed out that it is not possible, as it is not compatible with EU law to have the notification requirement we have today, and therefore suggested that requirements for building permits should be imposed for attefallshus. The government did not go in that direction but in the other, namely to completely remove the notification requirement.
What I believe many are worried about is that the Social Democrats, with their policy, want to roll back this freedom reform and introduce building permits for attefallshus – not just go back to the notification requirement, which is not compatible with EU law, but introduce building permits again.
This, Mr. Speaker, I want to give Denis Begic the chance to comment in this debate. I believe that many are concerned that there is a desire to roll back this freedom reform.
I shall therefore answer Denis Begic's specific question. If it turns out that the government's assessment that this does not involve any significant increase in the number of supervisory cases is not met one hundred percent, we must, of course, be prepared to look at and evaluate this. That is what one does with all legislation that is produced, and this is no exception. We will, of course, follow the application of the new legislation as it now rolls out. Not least when the snow begins to melt and many who have been waiting can begin to build on their plots, we will follow this – that is, obviously.
Denis Begic (S)
Mr. Speaker! I begin by answering the question. We have listened to and read everything that has come from the various referral bodies, including both blue and red municipalities. They warn against this simplification. It ruins the municipalities' planning regarding adaptation to water and sewage, fire protection, etcetera. All of that can be read in the investigation.
The core of the issue is this: When the state implements reforms that change the municipalities' mandates, the state must also take the consequences. Otherwise, a gap arises between decisions and reality.
The government says that this is a simplification. The municipalities say that it is a shift in costs. The referral bodies warn of increased risks, increased supervision needs, and poorer planning conditions – precisely what the minister accuses me of not wanting to have.
My request to the Minister is clear: Follow the reform closely, listen to the municipalities, and be prepared to take financial responsibility if the consequences prove to be large!
To all people who think they are now going to build freely, I want to say: Find out everything in advance! Make a report if you are unsure! This government has, in fact, shifted the responsibility to you, and the consequences for you – and for the municipalities – can be devastating. I understand the talk about simplification, but the risk is left to the individual person and to the municipalities. That is my great concern.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Denis Begic can, of course, be assured that we will follow the issue very closely. But it is not so many who primarily think about the municipalities' bureaucracy and administration. It has been experienced that even simple matters have been complicated. We are now making it significantly easier for the individual. One obviously retains the responsibility, but we believe that people are capable of taking that responsibility.
There is also a partial ideological difference in the debate here. We provide more power, influence, and decision-making opportunities with the help of simplifications for the individual, and we assess that people are also in the future capable of participating in the counseling and can make wise decisions. If uncertainties exist, advice can be obtained, and one can apply for a voluntary permit.
The announcement that Denis Begic gives shows clearly and distinctly that people have listened, but it means that the freedom reform will be rolled back. It will once again be necessary to introduce requirements for building permits for attefallshus, for complementary residential houses, for complementary buildings, and for extensions of single-family houses.
I also note that the opposition is divided, just as in so many other issues. For example, the Social Democrats want to introduce requirements for building permits again for attefallshus and the Left Party rejects the entire bill, while the Centre Party wants to go in a completely different direction and see even more extensive regulatory simplifications. It becomes uncertain what will happen if the misfortune occurs and we get a new government. Therefore, our message is clear, namely that we will continue to simplify for the individual so that it becomes easier to build on, rebuild, and build new. We trust that ordinary people can make the decisions. We believe that they are capable of doing so to develop their properties in a safe and good way that is secure for the entire area.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.