sou · H7B368 · 2019-12-20 00:00:00 — Kraven behövde därför prövas i samband med bygglovsprövningen. Det finns ett behov av att utreda om delar av andra tekniska egenskapskrav bör regleras som utformningskrav och därmed prövas redan i lovskedet. Det gäller särskilt krav på dags- ljus men även krav som rör bullerskydd, rumshöjd och utrymning- svägar. Vi föreslår därför att får i uppdrag av regeringen att göra en översyn av vilka delar av de tekniska egenskapskrav som på- verkar utformningen som även bör regleras som utformningskrav och prövas i bygglovet. The overarching objective for all our proposals is to bring about more modern regulations, and to ensure that both the regulatory framework and its application will be predictable, flexible and simplified. We propose measures which, taken together, provide the basis for a more appropriate construction process, wider variety in housing supply, greater competition and sustainable construction. The proposals contain principles for a comprehensive reform of , and Planning () regulations (BBR), a new authority to issue advance rulings on requirements for construction works, and clarifications and simplifications in the inspection process. We also make specific pro- posals for new regulations on the suitability of housing for its in- tended purpose. In addition, we propose that the term reconstruc- tion (ombyggnad) be removed from the Planning and Act (PBL) and that there be further investigation of the question of whether parts of the requirements relating to technical characteristics should be also regulated as design requirements and be examined in the permit. This is the third and last report from the Rules Modernisa- tion Committee. Our remit is hereby concluded. regulations are the way society sets the minimum accept- able level for what is built. In this report we review Chapters 8 and 10of PBL, Chapters 3–5 and 7 of the Planning and Ordi- nance (PBF), BBR and ’s Mandatory Provisions and General Recommendations on the Application of European Design Stan- dards () and the standards to which these refer. the appropriateness, effectiveness and scope of the regulatory frame- work. We have three part remits concerned with modernising and simplifying BBR, reviewing inspection and considering at what level (Riksdag, government, authority) there should be authori- sation to issue which regulations and which authority should do so. The purpose of our remit is to modernise and simplify the regula- tions and, at the same time, promote increased housing construction and competition, without jeopardising health, safety, design quality, a good residential environment and sustainable construction. Objectives for our proposals The overarching objective of all our proposals is to bring about more modern regulations, focusing on the regulatory framework and its application being predictable, flexible and simplified. The more precise objectives for our proposals on principles for reform of BBR and the of an authority to be known as the Requirements Commission () are that application of BBR should become more predictable and, at the same time, flexible so that there is scope for new solutions. Greater predictability is achieved through our proposal that the rules in BBR be made more specific and that the Requirements Commis- sion, on the initiative of developers, issue advance rulings on what solutions can be assumed to fulfil societal requirements. Both these proposals promote uniform application of the provisions. Most of the requirements for construction works do not presuppose any local considerations, the idea instead being that the same require- ments should apply throughout the country. The proposals in turn provide a new basis for the inspection process and consequently for the proposals we make regarding the inspection of construction. In the proposals we present on suitability for purpose in new construction, we apply the principles set down in the reform of BBR and establish the minimum requirements of society. There is an objective both for the principles at large and for the suitability requirements that the regulations should become less extensive and more comprehensible and consequently be simplified. The objectives behind the proposals on level of requirements with regard to suit- ability for purpose in new construction and reconstruction are more diversified housing supply and greater cost and resource efficiency. The objectives behind the proposals for inspection of construction are to streamline the process and parties involved so that pre- dictability is increased, application is simplified and construction defects are minimised. The provisions prescribed by central government are intended to enable the industry to develop towards a higher level of efficiency, innovation and fresh thinking. This is important in order to achieve more varied construction and higher productivity. To create such incentives there is a need for predicable provisions for those involved on the developers’ side so that they can devise new solutions and concepts that can be suited to a larger market. As a result, compete- tion can increase and contribute to a greater supply of housing at more reasonable cost. Principles for reform of BBR The regulatory technique currently in use in BBR, with generally worded provisions supplemented by non-binding general recommen- dations, which in turn refer to standards, has led to an ambiguous legal position. The lack of specific details in provisions means that the support for decision-making by municipalities in practice is contained in general recommendations and the standards to which they refer. This has led firstly to municipalities applying the pro- visions differently and secondly to difficulty in adopting solutions other than those indicated in general recommendations and standards. Different interpretations of the requirements in BBR create unpredictability and uncertainty and may hamper innovation and fresh thinking. costs are affected if different interpretations being made in the examination of permits and assessment in start clearances lead to costs in adapting each individual project. This may lead to repetition, learning and economies of scale being made more difficult, hampering industrial and mass construction in particular. Greater clarity in the rules is being requested by all parties concerned. We propose a reform of BBR for greater predictability, flexibility and comprehensibility. The provisions in BBR should be made more specific, for example by clarifying vague words and/or turning infor- mation from general recommendations and standards into regulatory requirements. At the same time, the general recommendations should as far as possible be removed, making what applies to everyone who implements the regulations more predictable. We further propose that the regulations as far as possible should be formulated as functional requirements to create scope for flexibility and make different solutions possible. This means that should avoid wording in the provisions that restricts different possible solutions, so that there is flexibility and it is possible to fulfil the regulations in different ways. should be commissioned by the Govern- ment to: •continue to formulate the regulations as far as possible as func- tional requirements, •clarify to the greatest degree possible vague words and formula- tions occurring in regulations that are of significance to the scope or requirement of the provision, •define terms in the regulations which are significant for the scope or requirements of the provision, •specify what methods of verification are to be applied to check that the requirements are met in those cases where sees a need for authority control in this respect, •reduce to the greatest degree possible the use of general recom- mendations and streamline the contents of those general recom- mendations which are retained, •delete references to standards in provisions and general recom- mendations, except in relation to standards prepared according to the new method, such as lifts and funicular railway facilities, •delete references to publications of authorities and organisations in general recommendations, •divide BBR into chapters and sections and, as far as possible, follow the order and terminology in PBL and PBF, and •state in what are referred to as information sections which pro- vision is being referred to and what it is concerned with. New provisions on the suitability of housing An area in which we see a great need for reform of BBR is require- ments for the suitability of housing in new construction. These regulations are of great significance for greater variety in housing supply and for cost and resource efficiency. We propose new pro- visions on the suitability of housing for its purpose for simplified construction and ample provision of housing. We propose that the requirements on the suitability of housing for its purpose should to a greater extent be stipulated in PBF instead of BBR. We take the view that which spaces are to be separated, sepa- rable and be able to overlap and which spaces are to have windows should be regulated in PBF, as this reflects a political position. Furthermore we make proposals for new authority provisions in 3:2 of BBR. We propose that each space is regulated in a separate section, without general recommendations and references to stan- dards. Clear and comprehensible regulation would be brought about in this way. Establishing a number of minimum dimensions in the provisions makes application of the provisions more predictable and flexible, as it allows for different layouts to meet the needs of different target groups. In comparison with the present-day regulations, the provisions we propose mean that special requirements for student accommoda- tion and dwellings larger than 55 square metres are removed. Category housing for a particular group of people, such as students, is not appropriate and may hamper flexibility in use of the housing stock over time. It also enriches society if people from different genera- tions can meet and live in the same residential areas. We therefore propose that the same requirements should apply to all dwellings up to 35 square metres, irrespective of whether they are student accom- modation or not. With the provisions we propose, it is estimated that the minimum size of these dwellings could become 16 square metres. It also becomes possible with 35 square metres of floor space to build apartments with either two single bedrooms or one double bedroom, as well as space for cooking, dining, socialising and leisure in an open-plan layout. The possibility of more compact housing solutions and more separate bedrooms is also being created for dwellings of above 55 square metres. We take the view that there is a crucial difference between dwellings for smaller households, in which mostly one or two people live, and larger dwellings which more people cohabit. It is therefore reason- able for central government to set different requirements for dwellings up to and above 35 square metres in size, where there is, for example, a greater need for separable spaces. However, the limit which exists at present for dwellings larger than 55 square metres is not appropriate. In the case of larger dwellings, the market can be assumed to meet the demand for further grades of housing to a greater extent. The limit of 55 square metres should therefore be removed. In the case of dwellings on more than one floor, we propose that the same requirements should apply to the ground floor as to dwellings of up to 35 square metres. In addition, space is only required for cook- ing, not interior fittings and equipment for cooking. This means that kitchens do not need to be installed from the outset, provided that water, drainage and electricity services are laid. The floor area on the ground floor can therefore be minimised in comparison with today, making dwellings on more than one floor possible even where space constraints mean that there is a small area per floor, for example in urban terraced houses. We also propose that the requirement of interior fittings for storage be removed. It is sufficient for space for storage to be ensured. It is not uncommon today for new wardrobes and hat racks to be thrown away, which is not resource-efficient. Accessibility and usability for people with impaired mobility or orientation is a fundamental requirement, where it is important for society to set the requirement level, as there is a risk of these needs otherwise not being met by the market. To make implementation easier, the dimensions required for accessibility in homes can be regulated together with requirements for suitability in 3:2. In the pro- posals we make on housing design in 3:2, we therefore include accessibility and usability in all spaces, passages and door openings in the dwelling, including outside doors, balcony doors and terrace doors. Introduction of the Requirements Commission for advance rulings on requirements for construction works Society has an interest in the requirements for construction works being interpreted and applied uniformly in the municipalities, except in cases where local consideration is required for example for good choice of form, colour and materials. In the present-day system it is not possible to a large amount of experience from legal practice in assessment of the design requirements and the requirements on technical characteristics. The fact that there is no extensive experience from legal practice also means that it is not possible to provide guidance on application of the requirements to any great extent. provides guidance on PBL, PBF and regulations, but cannot make an assessment in individual cases. in the present-day system is it possible to obtain an assessment by an expert who looks at fulfilment of the requirements from a combined perspective, encom- passing all technical characteristic requirements. We propose that an authority, the Requirements Com- mission () be introduced, tasked with making advance rulings on whether certain design requirements and all requirements concerning technical characteristics can be assumed to be fulfilled in new construction. The assessment in a advance ruling should relate to requirements for a to be suitable for its purpose and accessible and usable for persons with impaired mobility or orientation, as well as all requirements concerning the technical characteristics of construction works. It should be possible for devel- opers to apply to the authority for a advance ruling regarding the new construction of construction works. A positive advance ruling should be binding on the local committee in examining permits and assessing start clearances. Advance rulings of the Requirements Commission will create guiding practice, enabling application to become more uniform and predictable. This is desirable in particular for developers wishing to build on a more industrial scale and erect equivalent in different municipalities, often referred to as a mass construction or mass producers. The Requirements Commission should be governed by a new law and authority instructions. As a first step, the Government should appoint an organisational inquiry tasked with submitting pro- posals on the detailed organisation and tasks of the Require- ments Commission, based on the proposals we have presented. Removal of reconstruction from PBL To ensure that the provision of housing works well, it is important that the existing housing stock can be used effectively and can be altered when needs change. We have found that the present-day rules for reconstruction hamper reconstruction measures in the existing stock. Examples of reconstruction measures that may be hampered are extensive changes in layouts, conversions of commercial premises to homes, interventions in the frame of a or replacement of most of the technical systems. Consequential requirements arise at present in reconstruction, which mean that the design requirements and the requirements on technical characteristics have to be met for the whole or facility unless this is unreasonable, even if the reconstruction applies only to part of the or facility. It is also difficult for those who apply the regulations to differentiate between reconstruction and alteration, maintenance and extension. We therefore propose that the term reconstruction be removed from PBL. Within the scope of the existing distribution of responsibilities between developer and municipality, we have been tasked with reviewing the amendments made to Chapter 10 of PBL in 2011 and whether inspection is appropriately designed. We take the view that the elements constituting the present-day inspection pro- cess are logical based on how construction projects are performed. However, our proposals regarding inspection involve abolish- ing the roles of certified expert and inspection officer, as well as clarifying site visits and inspection plans. Abolition of certified expert The system of certified experts has several shortcomings and does not counteract defects to a sufficient degree. We therefore propose that inspection through certified experts be abolished, so that all inspections will be done as part of the developer’s self-inspec- tion. A developer who wants to engage experts in different areas to assist in construction projects can continue to do so, but under our proposal there will no longer be requirements for certified experts to be engaged in PBL. Abolition of inspection officer The system of inspection officers also has several shortcomings and therefore does not fulfil such an important function in the present- day inspection process that there is justification for requiring devel- opers to engage an inspection officer. We therefore propose that the system of inspection officers be abolished. A developer wishing to engage a person who is an expert in construction to assist in con- struction projects can continue to do so, but under our proposal this role will no longer be governed by PBL. Clarification of site visits Site visits are not always felt to be meaningful at present. There is therefore a need for more detailed regulation of site visits clarifying what is to be reviewed on a site visit. The significance of the site visit would be boosted in that way and its purpose would be made clear. We therefore propose that it be clarified in PBL what is to be reviewed on a site visit. Under the proposal, the following review of the following would be stipulated on a site visit: •how the permit, inspection plan, other conditions in start clearances and supplementary conditions are followed, •whether there are any deviations from the requirements appli- cable to the actions taken, •documentation on execution of the work, •need for other actions, and •whether there are reasons for the local committee to intervene under Chapter 11 of PBL. Clarification of inspection plans There is a need for more detailed provisions on what is to be stated in an inspection plan and how an inspection plan is to be formulated so that it will become a key instrument for the developer’s self- inspection. These regulations should be set out in authority provi- sions. We therefore propose that be tasked by the Govern- ment with issuing authority regulations on the design of inspection plans. Investigate review of requirements on technical characteristics The introduction of PBL resulted in requirements regarding suit- ability and accessibility being divided into design requirements and technical characteristics requirements respectively, because it was considered important to be able to intervene early in the process to ensure that resources would not be wasted. The requirements there- fore needed to be reviewed in connection with permit examination. There is a need to investigate whether parts of other requirements on technical characteristics should be regulated as design requirements and therefore already be examined at the permit stage. This applies in particular to requirements for daylight but also to requirements concerned with noise protection, room height and evacuation routes. We therefore propose that be tasked by the Government with reviewing which parts of the requirements on technical characteristics with an impact on design should also be regulated as design requirements and be examined in the permit. 1.1Förslag till lag (202X:XX) om förhandsavgörande om krav på byggnadsverk Härigenom föreskrivs följande. 1 § Denna lag gäller förhandsavgörande om krav på byggnadsverk vid nybyggnad. Förhandsavgörande avser krav i 8 kap. 1 § 1 och 3 samt 4 § (2010:900) och tillhörande föreskrifter som har meddelats med stöd av . Förhandsavgörande lämnas av efter ansökan av en enskild. 2 § består av högst fjorton ledamöter och högst tio ersättare. Ledamöter och ersättare förordnas av regeringen för högst i taget. Regeringen utser bland ledamöterna en ordförande och en vice ordförande. 3 § är beslutför när ordföranden vid samman- trädet samt fem andra ledamöter är närvarande. Nämnden är dock beslutför med färre ledamöter, om tre av dem, bland dem ord- föranden, är ense om utgången i ärendet. Fler än ordföranden samt sex andra ledamöter får inte delta i nämndens beslut. En ordförande eller en vice ordförande får ensam fatta andra beslut än att lämna förhandsbesked eller avvisa en ansökan om sådant besked. 4 § Om det framkommer skiljaktiga meningar vid överläggningen i tillämpas bestämmelserna i 16 kap. rättegångs- balken om omröstning i tvistemål. 5 § Efter ansökan av en enskild får förhandsavgörande lämnas i en fråga som avser krav på byggnadsverk enligt 1 § vid nybyggnad om det är av vikt för sökanden eller för en enhetlig lagtolkning eller rättstillämpning. 6 § En ansökan om förhandsavgörande ska vara skriftlig. Ansökan ska innehålla de ritningar, beskrivningar och andra uppgifter som behövs för prövningen. får anmoda sökanden att komma in med de ytterligare upplysningar som nämnden anser sig behöva för att pröva ansökan om förhandsbesked. Hinder mot att pröva ansökan 7 § med hänsyn till ansökans innehåll att förhandsavgörande inte bör lämnas ska ansökan avvisas. 8 § I förhandsavgörandet ska ange hur den fråga som förhandsavgörandet avser ska bedömas och om de krav som anges i 1 § kan antas komma att uppfyllas. Förhandsavgörandet ska delges den sökande. 9 § Ett förhandsavgörande om att krav som avses i 1 § kan antas komma att uppfyllas är bindande för i förhållande till den enskilde som förhandsavgörandet angår, om denne yrkar det, vid prövning av bygglov enligt 9 kap. och start- besked enligt 10 kap. (2010:900). Förhandsavgörandet är inte bindande om en författningsändring påverkar den fråga som förhandsavgörandet avser. 10 § För ett förhandsavgörande rörande en fråga som avses i 1 § får ta ut en avgift av en sökande enligt föreskrifter som regeringen meddelar. Om Mark- och undanröjer ett förhands- avgörande på grund av att det inte borde ha lämnats, ska avgiften betalas tillbaka. 11 § Avgift enligt 10 § som inte betalats inom den tid angett får tas ut genom indrivning enligt lagen (1993:891) om indrivning av statliga fordringar m.m. Vid indrivning får verkställighet enligt utsökningsbalken ske. 12 § Ett beslut om förhandsavgörande får överklagas endast av sökanden i ärendet. Ett förhandsavgörande får överklagas hos Mark- och . Överklagan ska ha kommit in till från den dag då klaganden fick del av förhandsbeskedet. 13 § Om en fråga i ett mål vid en mark- och miljödomstol har sam- band med en fråga om förhandsavgörande som är anhängig i får domstolen förordna att målet helt eller delvis ska vila till dess att förhandsbeskedet fått laga kraft. 14 § Beslut om avvisande av ansökan enligt 7 § och avgift enligt 10 § får inte överklagas. Denna lag träder i kraft . 1.2Förslag till lag om ändring i lagen (2014:267) om energimätning i byggnader