Response to interpellation 2025/26:30 on the evaluation of planning incentives
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 government has increased the support levels for planning incentives to increase the municipalities' planning readiness and make it more attractive to produce detailed plans for small houses and local conversions 1 2 3. KD argues that these incentives are popular and important for strengthening small house construction 1 2 3. KD considers it important to strengthen households' purchasing power and demand so that ordinary families can buy their own owned small house 4. KD argues that the government's investments in the budget to strengthen households' finances are a supporting part of this 4. S considers that housing construction has been halved 5. S claims that the planning incentives risk becoming a deadweight cost 6. S argues that the investment is inefficient 7.
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)
Madam Speaker! Markus Kallifatides has asked me if I and the government intend to take the initiative for an evaluation of planning stimuli.
The Government has launched two planning incentives for municipalities to adopt detailed plans that enable new areas for detached housing or conversions from premises to housing. The motives for the planning incentives are several. Well over half of the households in Sweden want to live in detached houses, and to meet this demand, the Government sees that municipalities need to make more detailed-planned land available for detached houses to a greater extent. The Government also sees a need to better utilize the potential that exists in the existing property stock by converting premises to housing, which in many cases requires that a detailed plan be adopted. Another motive for the planning incentives is the need for good planning readiness in the municipalities, even in a difficult economic situation. The availability of planned land is a factor of great importance for housing construction.
The government increased the support levels from April this year to make it even more attractive and create more incentives for municipalities to produce new detailed plans that enable small house construction and conversion of premises into housing. For the small houses, the support level was increased from 15,000 to 25,000 kronor per small house, and for the premises conversions, the support was increased from 150 to 300 kronor per square meter of premises area that can be converted into living area.
The planning incentives are popular. This applies particularly to detailed development plans that enable small-house construction, where the applications from the municipalities, according to figures from Boverket this year, have already exceeded the level of available funds to be granted.
The Government has, as I answered in a previous interpellation from Markus Kallifatides in the summer of 2024, considered a number of different aspects in the design of both the planning incentives and other measures taken within the housing policy area, so that the measures and the effects of these shall be of good quality.
The Government continuously monitors the outcomes of various measures in the housing policy area, including the planning incentives, which is also a reason why the support levels for these were increased this spring.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Infrastructure and Housing, for the answer to my interpellation! The background to my question to the Minister is the serious situation regarding housing construction in Sweden, which in approximate terms has been halved since the previous parliamentary term.
The overcrowding, which affects more than 100,000 households just here in Region Stockholm, is not decreasing. We are not reaching it. It is difficult for young people to move out from home. In rounded figures, a quarter of all young people live involuntarily at home with their parents. It is difficult to adapt housing to life situations during separation, divorce, death, or similar situations.
The poorly functioning housing supply and the low housing construction have socio-economic consequences, Madam Speaker. The functioning of the labor market deteriorates. The matching between people and jobs deteriorates, which hampers productivity development. The falling housing construction is, of course, in itself a falling investment level. And it is part of a falling economic activity in the socio-economy.
The government, since it took office, and the parliamentary majority, since it was formed after the last election, have with a certain systematicity rejected all our Social Democratic proposals for sharp measures to meet the recession in housing construction that hit with full force and which we saw coming and warned about. They chose, among other things, to prematurely remove the investment support for the construction of rental apartments with lower rent levels that existed. And they have rejected our proposals for renewed investment supports and favorable government construction loans – for example.
Instead, people have spoken about and focused on so-called structural reforms. It has been about increasing the availability of buildable land, it has been about shortening lead times in community construction and the building process, and it has been about regulatory simplification.
This is the background to my interpellation. I am asking questions regarding a tool, a reform that this government and this minister have actually implemented. It concerns planning incentives for municipalities. It is about producing detailed plans with two different purposes – detailed plans for the construction of small houses or detailed plans for the conversion of former premises into housing.
In my interpellation, I give an example from the municipality of Mariestad. It is a fine town. No shadow should fall over Mariestad. It was a detailed development plan project that was completed this year where support has been received from Boverket. Money has been paid out. It is a detailed development plan decision that has been made in the municipal council after 14 years of work. It is, therefore, support money that is issued to a municipality for something that the municipality would most likely have done anyway. It is an attractive waterfront location, an old camping area if I have not misunderstood.
Against the background of these conditions, I have asked the minister if he is prepared to conduct an evaluation of these planning stimuli. The question remains hanging in the air.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I said in my response that the government continuously monitors the outcomes of various measures in the housing policy area, including the planning incentives, which was also one of the reasons why the support levels for these were increased this spring.
We have noted that this is a popular support to receive. It is important that we achieve a higher planning readiness in the municipalities. It is a prerequisite for being able to build more small houses, which is a direction that our government has. This is not the only measure that we have taken to achieve this.
We see at the same time that many municipalities want and need to receive as large a return as possible in the form of new housing when they develop detailed development plans. This has contributed to the fact that the majority of the detailed development plans that have been developed in recent years have concerned just multi-family houses. We know at the same time that seven out of ten want to live in small houses – according to many surveys. That was why we saw a need for a financial incentive for municipalities to plan for increased small-house construction.
That is why we have developed this planning stimulus. We see now that many have applied for funds. The support levels were raised from April 1st this year. It is important, even when we are in a situation where there has been high inflation and a prolonged recession continues, that there is a state of planning readiness, that one, so to speak, prepares for better times. There is also a value in that projects that have been ongoing for a while are completed. One can also see it as a stimulus for municipalities to work so that started detailed plans actually get approved, so that they are ready when the economy finally turns and when the government's various measures to lower the thresholds to owner-occupied housing take effect.
During the spring, the mortgage ceiling will be raised. The tightened amortization requirement is being removed. It is also reasonable and important that the municipalities' planning readiness is increased and that these types of long planning processes are completed. It is therefore why we have designed this as a support for municipalities that adopt detailed plans for small houses.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister Andreas Carlson, for the answer!
In 1975, my parents moved with me and my little sister – I believe she had been born – to a house in Huddinge south of Stockholm. That year, around 50,000 small houses were built in Sweden. Now it is 5,000 small houses. This thing with stimulating small house construction in Sweden is not going so well, at least not in a historical perspective.
How can this be, Madam Speaker? Yes, it is about: Do people have any possibility at all to demand a newly produced small house under the circumstances that prevail in Sweden? The Minister mentioned amortization requirements. That type of regulation matters, and there is no major political conflict here in the chamber regarding that.
But my interpellation was about a specific measure. It is not gigantic in terms of the share of the state budget or even this expenditure area, expenditure area 18, which we usually debate. But this is about, so to speak, throwing money into the lake. This is a fee-financed municipal activity. The municipality has the right to charge a fee for its work with a detailed plan. It is this that is stimulated with a small extra bonus.
I am presenting for the second time here in the chamber the idea that there is a risk that the deadweight cost here approaches 100 percent. We are not stimulating the production of any more detailed plans, but rather we are distributing some money for detailed plans that would have been produced anyway. This is the underlying question.
It is a popular support – certainly. The municipalities that have an alert official or perhaps a municipal executive board chairman, KSO, who discovers that Boverket has a new support, submit an application and secure some million. But does this provide the desired effect – increased planning readiness, more square meters of detailed-planned land or the potential to convert premises into housing?
I wonder, Andreas Carlson, if one could perhaps even skip the step of evaluation and go directly to the possibility of admitting that the design of this specific planning stimulus was not necessarily the very best. One could have, for example, imagined stimulating new detailed plans rather than all detailed plan decisions in the municipal council during a certain period.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Just as Markus Kallifatides has pointed out, planning processes and detailed plans can take a very long time to produce. It is important for the government that this also reaches a conclusion – that a new detailed plan for detached houses is produced and that they are stimulated forward in order to achieve better planning readiness.
That is why, when we have followed up on the outcome of the planning incentives, we have also raised the level so that municipalities will receive better compensation if they perhaps produce detailed plans for detached houses instead of multi-family dwellings – which has been the majority of the detailed plans in recent years. At the same time, we see that seven out of ten want to live in detached houses.
It is important to say that this is not in contrast to other housing policies. We see this as part of strengthening the construction of small houses and strengthening the share of small houses in new production. It is also important for those who want to live in rented housing. We know, according to various surveys that the owner-occupier commissioner has pointed out in his second part report, that approximately one million people in Sweden who today live in rented housing would like to live in their own owned small house if they had the opportunity to request it, as Markus Kallifatides also expressed regarding the possibility of taking that step.
If one can then realize that housing dream and move to an owned small house, opportunities open up in the existing rented stock for others who want to get a foot in the door in that part of the housing market. Therefore, this is an important part. I want to be the first to concede that it is not the largest item in the budget, but we see now that it is a very popular support that has also led to detailed plans being adopted.
It is also a bit fascinating, Madam Speaker, to hear this enthusiasm for in-depth evaluations now. We have, after all, said that we have followed this and concluded that the support levels should be raised, so in some sense we have evaluated it.
When it comes, however, to for example the investment support that the previous government introduced and which was available to apply for from 2016, it was never evaluated on the initiative of the government. Other investigations, including the one that the Tenants' Association (Hyresgästföreningen) produced, point out, however, that approximately 10 billion kronor went to the construction of apartments that would have been built anyway. A certain self-reflection from the member would therefore be interesting. Why was he not worried about the billions then, when he is worried about the millions now, Madam Speaker?
We still see this as one of several important supports so that we can get the opportunity to have more people able to realize their housing dreams in Sweden and that more people can take the step to own their own small house. In that case, the planning readiness is very important. Regardless of how long a process has been ongoing, it is important that detailed plans are also developed that enable both for small house construction and for conversion from commercial premises to housing.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! When it comes to investment support, it also entails lower rent for those who live there in 100 percent of the cases.
We Social Democrats love detached houses, we love apartment buildings, and we love good housing for everyone. We therefore submit proposals that truly increase people's opportunities to demand new detached houses, new condominiums, and new rental apartments that can be in detached houses, semi-detached houses, terraced houses, or apartment buildings. That is why we have submitted such proposals throughout this entire parliamentary term. This concerns construction incentives and favorable government credits, and so on.
Madam Speaker! My interpellation concerned this specific reform. I question the effectiveness of this – modest – initiative from the government's side, and I feel that my questioning has only been strengthened through this debate. I do not think, perhaps, that we have gained any new ground through these measures compared to what we would have otherwise gained. I think that is a pity.
I think it feels like a lack of care regarding opportunities, and it keeps recurring in our policy area. When it comes to the ambition to simplify rules, bodies that have extremely serious criticism, among other things against the new building permit rules that were hammered through the other day, are being overridden.
I worry that Sweden will have suffered through four lost years in this policy area – housing policy. I regret it.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Markus Kallifatides, for the debate!
I can reassure Member Kallifatides that there have at least been more reforms in the housing area than housing ministers during these nearly four years – the three years so far.
It is important to strengthen households' purchasing power. It is important to strengthen demand, and it is important to ensure that ordinary families have the opportunity to take the step over the very high threshold that is experienced today to an own-owned small house. The government's very powerful initiatives in the budget to strengthen households' finances is, of course, a supporting part in this. It also goes hand in hand with the structural reforms that we have implemented so far to shorten lead times and simplify regulations. We know that time is money. Complicated regulations cost money.
That is also why we have taken action regarding increasing planning readiness – with the specific example we have debated today, and to ensure that the shore protection does not hinder rural development. This applies to both smaller towns that depend on being able to develop and medium and slightly larger cities where this is having very strange consequences today.
We will certainly have to return to that specific question here today, but we in the government continue our work so that more people can realize their housing dreams. I thank you for the discussion here today and look forward to certainly having more in the future.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.