final 26 september named

Is the Bulgarian Building Control regime more

bureaucratic than the regimes in the leading European

countries?

(A comparison with the English, German, French and Italian regimes,

focusing on the minimum scope of design approval for building permit)

Adriana Spassova MSc in Civil Engineering

Student ID number: 1033091

Address: Nerazdelni 14 St, Sofia 1164, Bulgaria

Mobile: +359 888 464928

Email: [email protected]

Date of birth: 23rd September 1960

Supervisor: Philip Britton LLB BCL, Senior Fellow, Faculty of Law

University of Melbourne, Australia; email: [email protected]

Mark awarded: 65 (attached KCL MSc certificate dated 1st December 2014)

Dissertation submitted in part fulfilment of an MSc degree in Construction Law & Dispute

Resolution, King’s College London

26th September 2014

Word count: 14902

© Centre of Construction Law & Dispute Resolution, King’s College London and 1033091

2014

mailto:[email protected]

of 88 Pages

Is the Bulgarian Building Control regime more bureaucratic than the regimes in the

leading European countries?

(A comparison with the English, German, French and Italian regimes, focusing on the minimum scope of design approval for building permit)

KEYWORDS

Applicable Law Employer Judicial Review Professionals

Breach Enforcement Latent Defects Profit

Building Regulations Engineer Liability Property

Codification Engineering and

Construction

Contract

Licence Quality Assurance

Commencement Local Authority Reasonable Skill &

Care Time Management

Condition Precedent Environment Mistake Reference

Construction European Union Negligence Risk

Contract Experts Neighbour Specification

Contractor Extension of Time Notice Statutes

Costs Fire Payment Supervision

Crown, The France Penalty Supplier

Damages Funder Performance Tender

Delay Germany Public Policy Third Party

Delegation Harmonisation Prevention Time

Design Health & Safety Price Title

Dispute Insurance Procedure Validity

Disruption Interest Procurement Variations

Drawings Interference Professional Warranty

Economic Loss Interpretation Negligence Works

ABSTRACT

The dissertation compares the procedures and the minimum scope of design approval

required for a building permit in Bulgaria, England, Germany, France and Italy. The goal is

to find out whether the Bulgarian regime is the most bureaucratic. The analysis is based upon

the investigation of the regulatory requirements, impact assessment of the regime, case

studies and interviews with professionals. Simplification measures are proposed in line with

EU policy and lean thinking principles.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to Philip Britton, Richard Kerry, Gavin O’Grady, Jose Anon, Ronaldo

Colalillo, Grifone Oddi Baglioni, Giuseppe D’Auria, Chavdar Mladenov, Milka Getcheva

and DNCC team, Valia Bakalova, Savin Kovatchev, Vyara Stoykova, Stefan Kinarev,

Borislav Borissov, Vladimir Damyanov, Hristo Venkov, Jeroen van der Heijden and Jerome

Mentre.

of 88 Pages

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 5

TABLE OF CASES.......................................................................................................... 6

TABLE OF STATUTES AND STANDARDS ............................................................... 6

TABLE OF REPORTS................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 14

A. Aim of the study .......................................................................................................... 14

B. Building control in EU ................................................................................................ 15

C. Research approach and methodology .......................................................................... 16

CHAPTER 2 Red Tape is the enemy of Lean thinking .......................................................... 18

A. The risk-based categorisation of construction works is not adequately linked with the

design supervision levels (DSL) ......................................................................................... 18

B. The minimum scope and contents of the design for a building permit are excessive . 20

C. Overlapping of approvals and legal uncertainty create bureaucracy........................... 22

D. Bureaucratic regime for permitting design changes during construction ................ 26

CHAPTER 3 EU is driving Bulgaria towards better regulation ............................................. 27

A. Bureaucracy and the general principles of EU law ..................................................... 27

A.1. Proportionality...................................................................................................... 27

A.2. Legal certainty ...................................................................................................... 28

B. Cutting the Red Tape in line with Strategy 2020 ........................................................ 28

C. Forecast........................................................................................................................ 31

CHAPTER 4 Building control regimes .................................................................................. 33

A. Assumptions for the comparison ................................................................................. 33

B. Bulgaria ....................................................................................................................... 34

B.1. LEGAL STRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 34

B.2. DESIGN APPROVAL ......................................................................................... 34

C. England ........................................................................................................................ 36

C.1. LEGAL STRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 36

C.2. DESIGN APPROVAL ......................................................................................... 37

D. France ...................................................................................................................... 40

D.1. LEGAL STRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 40

D.2. DESIGN APPROVAL ......................................................................................... 42

E. Germany ...................................................................................................................... 44

E.1. LEGAL STRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 44

of 88 Pages

E.2. DESIGN APPROVAL ......................................................................................... 45

F. Italy .............................................................................................................................. 47

F.1. LEGAL STRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 47

F.2. DESIGN APPROVAL ......................................................................................... 49

G. Comparison .............................................................................................................. 51

CHAPTER 5 Case study......................................................................................................... 53

A. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 53

B. Case study 1: a dwelling (SDA Cat.V) ........................................................................ 54

C. Case study 2: a medical centre (SDA Cat.IV).............................................................. 56

CHAPTER 6 Ranking bureaucracy in design approval ......................................................... 59

CHAPTER 7 Waste reduction ................................................................................................ 63

CHAPTER 8 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 68

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 69

App 1 Questionnaire for England, France, Germany and Italy .............................................. 70

App 2 Questionnaire for Bulgaria .......................................................................................... 71

App 3 Scope and contents of technical design for a building ................................................ 72

App 4 Number of design documents proceeded for a dwelling ............................................. 76

App 5 Number of design documents proceeded for a medical centre .................................... 79

App 6 Number of design documents proposed for building notice regime in Bulgaria for a

dwelling .................................................................................................................................. 84

App 7 Number of design documents proposed for a medical centre in Bulgaria ................... 84

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 85

of 88 Pages

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Words Abbreviation

Approved Inspector (EN) AI

Building Control Body BCB

Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group BCPSAG

Bulgaria BG

Bolletino Ufficiale della Regione (IT) BUR

Compliance Assessment of the design with requirements CA

Consortium of European Building Control CEBC

Construction Industry Council Approved Inspectors Register (EN) CICAIR

Competent person scheme (EN) CP

Construction Products Regulation CPR

Department for Communities and Local Government DCLG

Germany DE

Directory for National Construction Control (BG) DNCC

Preliminary declaration (déclaration préalable) (FR) DP

Detailed Zoning Plan DZP

European Commission EC

European Court of Justice ECJ

Environment Impact Assessment EIA

England EN

Public buildings (établissements recevant du public) (FR) ERP

European Union EU

France FR

Health & Safety Plan HSP

Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning HVAC

Italy IT

Local Authority LA

Linear Additive Multi-Criteria Model LAMCM

Mechanical and Electrical M&E

Multi-Criteria Analysis MCA

Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (BG) MRDPW

Operational Programme Administrative Capacity (EU) OPAC

Building & management permit (permis d'aménager) (FR) PA

Building permit (permis de construire) (FR) PC

Building permit for an individual house (permis de costruire une maison individuelle) (FR)

PCMI

Demolition permit (permis de démolir) (FR) PD

Point of Single Contact PSC

Renewable Energy sources RES

Regulatory Impact Assessment RIA

Sportello Unico per le Attività Produttive (IT) S.U.A.P.

Sportello Unico per l’Edilizia (IT) S.U.E.

Spatial Development Act (BG) SDA

State Gazette (BG) SG

Small and medium enterprises SMEs

Waste Management Plan WMP

of 88 Pages

TABLE OF CASES

Case Pages

Case C8/55 Federation Charbonniere de Belgique v High Authority [1954] ECR 245

27

Case C-331/88 The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State for Health ex parte Fedesa and Others [1990] ECR I-4023

27

Case C-84/94 United Kingdom v Council [1996] ECR I-5755 27

Case T-115/94 Opel Austria v Council [1997] ECR II-39 28

Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398 (UKHL) 38

TABLE OF STATUTES AND STANDARDS

Short name Statute Relevant

provisions

Pages

European Union

Council Directive 89/106/EEC

Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member

States relating to construction products [1989] OJ L40/12

74

Council

Directive 89/391/EEC

Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on

the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers

at work [1989] OJ L183/1

74

Council Directive 92/57/EEC

Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction

sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive

89/391/EEC) [1992] OJ L245/6

74

Directive 2005/36/EC

Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications [2005]

OJ L255/22

Art. 53 21

Directive 2008/98/EC

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste

and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance) [2008] OJ L312/3

75

EU Treaty Consolidated version of the Treaty on European

Union [2012] OJ C326/01

Art. 5(4) 27

PSI Directive Directive on the Re-Use of Public Sector Information

29

Regulation

(EU) No 244/2012

Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012

supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the

73

of 88 Pages


provisions

Pages

energy performance of buildings by establishing a comparative methodology framework for

calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings

and building elements [2012] OJ L81/18

Regulation (EU) No

305/2011

Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011

laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC [2011] OJ L88/5

24

EN

16311:2013: E

CEN, EN 16311:2013: E, Engineering services –

Terminology to describe engineering services for industrial products (ICS 01.040.03; 03.080.20,

2013)

9 21

EN 1990:2002-E

CEN, EN 1990:2002-E, Eurocode – basis of structural design (ICS 91.010.30, 2002)

Annex B, B3.1, B4

18, 19

Bulgaria

Waste Management Act (Закон за управление на отпадъците) Ministry of Environment and

Water (2012) 53 SG, amended (2013) 66

75

Regulation for management of construction waste and incorporation of recycled construction

materials (Наредба за управление на строителните отпадъци и за влагане на

рециклирани строителни материали) Council of Ministers’ Order 277 (2012) 89 SG

Art. 5 75

Biodiversity Act (2002)

Biodiversity Act (Закон за биологичното разнообразие) (2002) 77 SG, amended (2005)

88&105 SG, (2006) 30&34 SG, (2007) 52&64&94 SG, (2008) 43 SG, (2009)

19&80&103 SG, (2010) 62&89 SG, (2011) 19&33 SG, (2012) 32&59&77 SG, (2013) 15&27&66 SG

24

Chamber of

Architects and

Engineers Act (2003)

Chamber of Architects and Engineers in

Investment Design Act (Закон за камарите на архитектите и инженерите в

инвестиционното проектиране) (2003) 20 SG, amended (2003) 65 SG, (2005) 77 SG, (2006) 30 &79 SG, (2007) 59 SG, (2008) 13 SG, (2009) 28

SG, (2010) 15 SG, (2012) 82 SG, (2013) 66&83 SG

21, 22

Cultural

Heritage Act (2009)

Cultural Heritage Act (Закон за културното

наследство) (2009) 19 SG, amended 80&92&93 SG, (2010) 101 SG, (2011) 54 SG, (2012)

15&38&45 SG

Art. 14 24

Energy Efficiency

Energy Efficiency Act (Закон за енергийната ефективност) (2008) 98 SG, amended (2009) 6

Art. (15), 22

of 88 Pages


provisions

Pages

Act (2008) & 19 & 42 & 82 SG, (2010) 15 & 52 & 97 SG, (2011) 35 SG, (2012) 38 SG, (2013) 15& 24 & 59

& 66 SG, (2014) 22 SG

23a(1)

Environmental Protection

Act (2002)

Environmental Protection Act (Закон за опазване на околната среда) (2002) 91 SG, amended 98

SG, (2003) 86 SG, (2004) 70 SG, (2005) 74&77&88&95&105 SG, (2006)

30&65&82&99&102 SG, (2007) 31&41&89 SG, (2008) 36&52&105 SG, (2009) 12&19&32&35&47&82&93&103 SG, (2010)

46&61 SG, (2011) 35&42 SG, (2012) 32&38&53&82 SG, (2013) 15&27 SG, (2014) 22

SG

24

Fire safety regulation

Regulation № Iз-1971 for construction–technical rules and norms for fire safety (Наредба № Iз-1971 за строително-технически правила и

норми за осигуряване на безопасност при пожар) Ministry of Interior & MRDPW (2009)

96 SG, amended and extended (2013) 75 SG

Art.4(1) App.3

74

Regulation 1: Construction works

classification (2003)

Regulation No. 1 for the nomenclature of the construction works (Наредба № 1 за номенклатурата на видовете строежи)

MRDPW (2003) 72 SG, amended (2011) 23 SG

17

Regulation

14 for the airports

Regulation 14 of 15 October 2012 for the airports

and airport provisions (Наредба №14 от 15.10.2012 г. за летищата и летищното осигуряване) Minister of transport, information

technology and communications (2012) 86 SG

Art. 130 25

Regulation 2 for health and

safety

Regulation 2 for minimum requirements for healthy and safe labour conditions during the

execution of construction works (Наредба № 2 за минималните изисквания за здравословни и

безопасни условия на труд при извършване на строителни и монтажни работи) Ministry of labour and social policy (2004) 37 SG, amended

(2004) 98 SG, (2006) 102 SG

Art. 10 74

Regulation 3 for the design

of structures (2004)

Regulation No. 3 for the general requirements for design of structures and impact upon structures

(Наредба № 3 от 21 юли 2004 г. за основните положения за проектиране на конструкциите на строежите и за въздействията върху тях)

(2004) 92 SG amended (2004) 98 SG, (2005) 33 SG

Art. 33, 34 & App.1

18, 19

Regulation 4 Regulation No. 4 for the scope and the contents of

the investment design (Наредба № 4 за обхвата и съдържанието на инвестиционните проекти) MRDPW (2001) 51 SG, amended

20, 21,

34

of 88 Pages


provisions

Pages

(2009) 85 & 96 SG

Regulation 7

for energy efficiency

Regulation 7 for energy efficiency, heat

preservation and energy saving in buildings (Наредба № 7 за енергийна ефективност, топлосъхранение и икономия на енергия в

сгради) MRDPW (2005) 5 SG, amended (2009) 85 & 92 SG, (2010) 2 SG, (2013) 80 & 93 SG

Art.27 73

Regulation

No. РД-02-20-25 for the registration

of consultants

Regulation No. РД-02-20-25 for the conditions

and order for issuance of certificates for the registration of consultants for compliance assessment of investment designs and/or

construction supervision (Наредба № РД-02-20-25 за условията и реда за издаване на

удостоверение за вписване в регистъра на консултантите за оценяване на съответствието на инвестиционните

проекти и/или упражняване на строителен надзор) MRDPW (2012) 98 SG

23

SDA Spatial Development Act (Закон за устройство

на територията), (2001) 1 SG, amended (2001) 41 & 111 SG, (2002) 43 SG, (2003) 20 & 65 & 107 SG, (2004) 36 & 65 SG, (2005) 28 & 76 & 77

& 88 & 94 & 95 & 103 & 105 SG, (2006) 29 & 30 & 34 & 37 & 65 & 76 & 79 & 82 & 106 & 108

SG, (2007) 41 & 61 SG, (2008) 33 & 43 & 54 & 69 & 98 & 102 SG, (2009) 6 & 17 & 19 & 80 & 92 & 93 SG, (2010) 15 & 41 & 50 & 54 & 87,

(2011) 19 & 35 & 54 & 80 SG, (2012) 29 & 32 & 38 & 45 & 47 & 53 & 77 & 82 & 99 SG, (2013)

15 & 24 & 27 & 28 & 66 & 109 SG, (2014) 49 & 53 SG

Art 136, 139,

142, 144, 145, 148, 149, 154,

156, 169

14, 16,

18÷24, 26, 34

Water Act (2000)

Water Act (Закон за водите) (2000) 67 SG, amended 81 SG, (2001) 34&41&108 SG, (2002)

47&74&91 SG, (2003) 42&69&84&107 SG, (2004) 6&70 SG, (2005) 18&77&94 SG, (2006)

29&30&36&65&66&105&108 SG, (2007) 22&59 SG, (2008) 36&52&70 SG, (2009) 12&32&35&47&82&93&95&103 SG, (2010)

61&98 SG, (2011) 19&28&35&80 SG, (2012) 45&77&82 SG, (2013) 66&103 SG, (2014)

26&49&53 SG

23

England

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 36

Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004 36

Building Act 1984

Building Act 1984 ss 4, 16, 47, 50, 51A

36, 38, 39

Environment Environmental Protection Act 1990 36

of 88 Pages


provisions

Pages

al Protection Act 1990

SI 2005/1541 The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 38

SI 2010/2214 The Building Regulations 2010 Pt 2 reg 9, 12, 13, 14

36, 37

SI 2010/2215 The Building (Approved Inspectors) Regulations 2010

36

SI 2010/404 The Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010

36

France

Building and Housing

Code

Building and Housing Code Consolidated Version 6 August 2014 (Code de la construction et de

l’habitation Version consolidée au 6 août 2014)

Art L111, L122, R111,

R122, R123,

40, 41, 42, 43,

44

Environmental Code

Environmental Code Consolidated Version 2 August 2014 (Code de l’environnement Version

consolidée au 2 août 2014)

Art R563 41

Spinetta Law Law on Liability and Insurance in Construction (Loi n°78-12 du 4 janvier 1978 relative a la responsabilite et a l'assurance dans le domaine de

la construction) JORF 5 January 1978

40

Town Planning

Code

Town Planning Code Consolidated Version 1 September 2014 (Code de l'urbanisme Version

consolidée au 1 septembre 2014)

Book IV pt II ch Ier

40, 42

Germany

BauGB Federal Building Code (Baugesetzbuch (BauGB)) 1960 BGBI.I (2004)2414, last amendment BGBI.I (2014) 954

44

BayBO Bavarian Building Act (Bayerische Bauordnung (BayBO)) GVBl. I (2007)588

44

BbgBauVorlV

Regulation on submissions and evidence in building control procedure in Brandenburg

(Verordnung über Vorlagen und Nachweise im bauaufsichtlichen Verfahren im Land

Brandenburg (Brandenburgische Bauvorlagenverordnung- BbgBauVorlV))25 GVBl. II (2009) 494 issued by the Minister of

Infrastructure and Spatial Planning

45

BbgBO Brandenburg Building Act (Brandenburgischen Bauordnung (BbgBO)) 14 GVBl. I (2008)226

Para 55, 57, 58, 64

44, 45

Italy

L 106/2011 Act 106 of 12 July 2011(Legge 12 luglio 2011)

106 GU

48

OPC Ministers Council President’s Order n. 3274 of 20 49

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2215/contents/made

of 88 Pages


provisions

Pages

3274/2003 March 2003 (Ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 3274 del 20 marzo 2003)

(2003) 105 GU

Lazio RR 2/2012

Regional Regulation 7 February 2012 n.2 “Streamlining procedures for exercising the

functions of the regions in the field of seismic risk prevention” (Regolamento regionale 7 febbraio

2012 n.2 "Snellimento delle procedure per l'esercizio delle funzioni regionali in materia di prevenzione del rischio sismico" ) (2012) 6 BUR

supp 9

49

DM 37/2008 Ministerial Decree of 22 January 2008: Services Decree 22 January 2008, no. 37 (Decreto 22

gennaio 2008, n. 37: Impiantistica) (2008) 61 GU

50, 57

DM 7 August 2012

Ministerial Decree of 7 August 2012 (D.M. 7 agosto 2012) 201 GU art 3

50

DPR

151/2011

Presidential Decree August 1, 2011, n. 151

(D.P.R. 1 agosto 2011, n. 151) (2011) 221 GU

50

LR 5/2010, amended by LR 8/2011

Regional law LR 5/2010, 6 BUR supp 2 art 7 para 3 abis)10&11, simplified by LR 8/2011, list in DGR 167/2012, 10 BU supp 3)

Umbria RR

98/2012

Minimum

design for a building permit and

SCIA

Regional Regulation 98/2012 (Deliberazione della

Giunta Regionale 6 febbraio 2012, n.98. Atto di indirizzo per la definizione degli elaborati

progettuali minimi, degli schemi tipo delle istanze,comunicazioni, dichiarazioni, asseverazioni e certificazioni relativi ai

procedimenti dei titoli abilitativi ed alle opere libere inerenti l’attività edilizia di cui all’art.

45,comma 1, lettere a), c) e d) e comma 2 della legge regionale 18 febbraio 2004, n. 1 e s.m.i., nonché la dichiarazione di conformità del piano

attuativo.) (2012) 10 BUR Umbria, supp ordinario n2, app A (Elaborati progettuali minimi a corredo

delle istanze di permesso di costruire e segnalazione certificata di inizio attività edilizia)

49

T.U.E.

DPR

380/2001

Decree of the President of the Republic on 6 June 2001, n.380 (Testo unico in materia edilizia

(Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 6 guigno 2001, n.380)) (2001) 245 GU supp 239

Art 2L, 5R,

6L, 7L, 20,

65R, 93R,

94L

47÷50

Umbria DGR

325/2012

DGR 325/2012 (Atto di indirizzo sulle procedure

regionali relative alle competenze previste dall’art. 3, comma 1, lett. a) della L.R. n.5 del

27.01.2010 e smi)

78

Umbria LR 1/2004

Umbria Regional Law 1/2004, Building Activity Regulations (LR 1/2004, Norme per l’attività

art 7, 20 para 1 a)

54, 60

of 88 Pages


provisions

Pages

edilizia) (2005) 8 BUR app 1, amended LR12/2013 29 BUR app1, 128

TABLE OF REPORTS

Short name Report Pages

Baldwin, ‘Risk regulation, management and

compliance’

Robert Baldwin, Bridget Hutter and Henry Rothstein, ‘Risk regulation, management and compliance’ (A report to the BRI Inquiry, The London School of Economics and Political

Science, 2000)

65

CEBC, ‘Value of Building Control’

(2012)

CEBC, ‘Value of Building Control’ (2012) Building Control Report < http://89.238.137.53/~cebc/?wpfb_dl=10> accessed

26 July 2014

33, 53

CEBC, Building Control Systems

in Europe (2006)

CEBC, Building Control Systems in Europe ISBN 1842192248 (2006) Building Control Report Issue 2 <

http://www.cebc.eu/> accessed 26 July 2014

COM(2013) 352 final

Commission, ‘Assessment of the 2013 National Reform Programme and Convergence Programme for Bulgaria’ (Accompanying the document Recommendation for a Council

Recommendation on Bulgaria’s 2012 National Reform Programme and delivering a Council Opinion on Bulgaria’s

Convergence Programme for 2012-2016)’ COM(2013) 352 final, ch 3.4, Recommendation 5

Council Recommendation on Bulgaria’s 2013 national reform

programme and delivering a Council opinion on Bulgaria’s 2013 convergence programme for 2012-2016 (2013)

10625/1/13

29

COM(2014) 445 final

Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on

Resource Efficiency Opportunities in the Building Sector’

30

EC, ‘Models to Reduce the

Disproportionate Regulatory

Burden on SMEs’, 2007

EC, ‘Report of the Expert Group, Models to Reduce the Disproportionate Regulatory Burden on SMEs’ (2007)

13, 28

Egan, ‘Rethinking

Construction’

Sir John Egan, ‘Rethinking Construction’ (Report of the Construction Task Force on the scope for improving quality

and efficiency in UK construction, Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, 1998)

14

LABC&ACAI

Compliance

LABC&ACAI Compliance Actions Survey (2012)

<http://approvedinspectors.org.uk/wp-

33

http://89.238.137.53/~cebc/?wpfb_dl=10

http://approvedinspectors.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/LABC-ACAI-Compliance-Actions-Research-Report-for-BCA-March-2012-Final.pdf

of 88 Pages

Short name Report Pages

Actions Survey (2012)

content/uploads/2012/03/LABC-ACAI-Compliance-Actions-Research-Report-for-BCA-March-2012-Final.pdf> accessed 12 August 2014

NCTD, ‘SDA RIA’ (2011)

National Centre for Territorial Development EAD, ‘SDA Regulations Impact Assessment: Final Report’ (Оценка на въздействието на регулациите в закона за устройство на

територията: Окончателен доклад) (2011)

17, 63

‘Report on the SDA permitting

regimes’ (2013)

Bakalova & Damyanov Law Firm, ‘Report on the results of the survey of the agreement and permitting regimes in the

SDA and proposals for optimisation of the process for building permitting and use permitting of the completed projects’ (Bulgarian Construction Chamber Regional Office

Sofia Regional Council Task Force 2013)

20

‘Screening of National Building

Regulations’

‘The Lead Market Initiative and Sustainable Construction: Lot 1, Screening of National Building Regulations’( Final Report

Summary) ch 4.3, <http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/construction/studies/national-building-regulations_en.htm> accessed 6 August 2014

28, 85



of 88 Pages

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

“Through smarter regulation, we can remove barriers to growth and encourage investment, choice and innovation.”1

A. Aim of the study

After the collapse of socialism in 1989, followed by a 10 year privatisation process, new

construction legislation was introduced in Bulgaria, reflecting the changes in the real

property law. The new codification introduced delegation of the design verification process

to licensed third parties. At the same time some of the old practices still remain. On average

the Bulgarian Parliament changes the law regulating building control2 five times per year.

The country is the poorest in the EU3 and it is really a challenge to build up a business and

survive (in particular, when dealing with underpaid administration officers within a

constantly changing regulatory framework). "Bureaucracy", "overregulation", "red tape"

are frequently mentioned by businesses as obstacles to their development and growth.”4

Foreign investors and professionals always claim that the Bulgarian building control

procedures are extremely bureaucratic, consuming extra resources and delaying projects.

About ten separate design parts, each containing an explanatory note, drawings and

calculations, have to be approved for a building permit. The same scope and contents of the

design is required both for low-risk private and high-risk public projects. Agreement and

compliance assessment (CA) procedures often overlap and cause extra costs and delay.

The dissertation aims to compare the Bulgarian building control regime with the leading

European countries’ regimes, in order to find out whether the Bulgarian regime is more

bureaucratic and if so, what can be done to improve it following the best European practices.

The simplification of the regime would cut the economic losses, related to unreasonable

delay and disruption of businesses. Creating a friendly and transparent environment, it would

bring certainty and eliminate corruption.

1HM Government Cabinet Office’s web site Red Tape Challenge-Housing and Construction,

<http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/themehome/housing-and-construction/> accessed 29 July

2014.

2 Spatial Development Act (2001) 1 SG: 66 amendments for 13 years, 10 in 2006! 3 Year of EU entry: 2007.

4 EC, ‘Models to Reduce the Disproportionate Regulatory Burden on SMEs’ (2007).

of 88 Pages

Sir John Egan shows the way forward: “there is scope for regulatory regimes such as

building control to be more output driven, so that constructors and their clients are able to

deliver to performance standards rather than detailed prescriptions”5.

B. Building control in EU

The building control regimes enforce the building regulations, setting minimum

requirements for safe, healthy, energy-efficient and accessible buildings and structures. This

is a public law area: it is the public interest to ensure that buildings are safely and properly

designed and constructed via a process of uniform regulation, backed with enforcement

procedures, including sanctions. There is also awareness of the special claim for legal

protection of the residential occupiers, in relation to the basic housing standards. The

building control regimes are linked with other regimes, regulating the built environment and

infrastructure:

planning and zoning;

cultural heritage preservation;

fire safety;

road, railroad and air traffic safety;

EIA;

preservation of biodiversity (Natura 2000);

utility operators’ requirements;

protection from local hazards (e.g. earthquakes, landslides, floods, volcanic activity);

waste management;

water policy, etc.

“The general characteristics of the building control system in European countries are similar. Designs must be prepared and submitted to an authority that approves

its compliance with zoning demands and building regulations. During construction, site inspections guarantee that the structure is built according to design and that it complies with the building regulations. Once construction is complete, a final check

is conducted and a completion certificate or a use permit is issued.”6

Due to the word limit, this dissertation is focused on the minimum scope of design approval

required to commence construction, because arguably this is the topic which has the most

potential for improvement.

5 Egan, ‘Rethinking Construction’, para 66.

6 João Pedro and others , Comparison of Building Permit Procedures in European Union Countries (COBRA

2011) 415.

of 88 Pages

C. Research approach and methodology

The topic includes public policy analysis: a comparison of existing regimes in order to

identify their bureaucratic features and rank them accordingly. The aim is to improve the

Bulgarian regulations, following the best European practices. The study includes problem

structuring, forecasting, monitoring, evaluation and recommendation. Those phases are

drawn upon Dunn’s Public Policy Analysis7, applied following Heijden8.

Figure 1. Phases of the analysis9

The following activities are being implemented during the research and analysis:

Identification and structuring of the problem;

Review of building control regulations;

Interviews of professionals in Italy, Germany, France and England, using the

Questionnaire in Appendix 1;

Review of relevant studies;

Review of web sites of building control authorities and private certifiers;

Review of articles, reports, thesis and books, analysing regulations;

Review of case law;

Review of data from EUROSTAT, DNCC and municipality registers;

Case study: design approval for two real projects;

MCA: ranking of the regimes according to the regulatory burden;

7 William N. Dunn, Public Policy Analysis an Introduction (Ed 5 2008).

8 Jeroen van der Heijden, Building Regulatory Enforcement Regimes: Comparative Analysis of Private Sector

Involvement in the Enforcement of Public Building Regulations (IOS Press 2009) 9. 9 William N. Dunn, ‘Power Points and Teaching Notes’ Ch 3

<https://sites.google.com/a/policyonline.org/www/powerpointslides,datasets,andteachingnot> accessed 20 July

2014.

https://sites.google.com/a/policyonline.org/www/powerpointslides,datasets,andteachingnot

of 88 Pages

Further analysis of the Bulgarian regime, using the Questionnaire for Bulgaria

(Appendix 2).

In case of different regional regulations, two sample locations are selected.

I use Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) to rank the bureaucratic features of the five regimes. I

develop a Linear Additive Multi-Criteria Model (LAMCM), which “has a straightforward

intuitive appeal and transparency that ensures it a central role in any discussion of MCA”.10

Table 1. Structure of the analysis

Policy analysis

phase

Research

approach

Tools/ Sources Chapter

Problem

structuring

In depth

analysis

Review of SDA RIA,11

publications and case law

Interviews of decision makers and professionals

Chapter 2: Red Tape12

is the enemy of Lean thinking

Forecasting of expected policy consequences

Literature review

Trend

extrapolation

EU Strategy 2020

World Bank survey Doing Business13

Chapter 3: EU is driving Bulgaria towards better

regulation

Monitoring of building control

regimes

Explorative analysis

Regulations review

Chapter 4: Building control regimes

Case study

research

Real project Chapter 5: Case study

Evaluation of regimes

MCA

LAMCM Chapter 6: Ranking bureaucracy in design

approval

Recommendation of preferred

policies

Lean thinking Lean principles Chapter 7: Waste reduction

Chapter 8: Conclusion

10 DCLG, Multi-criteria Analysis: a Manual (2009).

11 NCTD, ‘SDA RIA’ (2011).

12 Red tape – excessive bureaucracy or adherence to official rules and formalities. Originates from early 18th

century, when red or pink tape was used to bind official documents (OED).

13 World Bank, Doing Business 2014: Understanding Regulations for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises’

(ISBN 978-0-8213-9984-2, 11th edn).

of 88 Pages

CHAPTER 2 Red Tape is the enemy of Lean thinking

In 2009 Bulgaria made obtaining a construction permit more complicated by increasing the fees, time and procedures for obtaining approvals of construction related procedures. Doing Business measured no reform for

2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.14

Bureaucratic procedures are those “over-concerned with procedure at the expense of

efficiency or common sense”.15 Over-concerned with procedure in the light of the topic

means formalistic approach, rather than output performance-based one. Efficiency generally

describes the extent to which time, effort or cost is well used for the intended task or

purpose.

In order to structure the problem, I shall analyse the Bulgarian regime for design approval

and identify the waste of resources in several zones.

A. The risk-based categorisation of construction works is not

adequately linked with the design supervision levels (DSL)

The design approval and building control codification is provided by section 8 of the SDA2.

According to their characteristics, importance, complexity and operational risks, construction

works are divided in 6 categories16.No design approval is required for permitting Category

VI works.17

The risk-based classification of structures has been implemented in the Bulgarian Regulation

3,18similar to the reliability classification (RC) in the Eurocode.19 The reliability classes may

be associated with the consequences classes (CC), established by considering the

14 World Bank, ‘Doing Business 2014: Economy Profile: Bulgaria’ (11th edn ) 28

<http://www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/giawb/doing%20business/documents/profiles/country/bgr.pdf>

accessed 29 July 2014 15 OUP, Oxford Dictionary of English, Kindle ed

16(n 2) art. 137; Detailed categorisation: Regulation No. 1: Construction works classification (2003) 17 (n 2) art 147

18 Regulation No. 3 for the design of structures (2004) 92 SG app 1 19 EN 1990:2002-E, Annex B, B3.1 Consequences classes: “For the purpose of reliability differentiation,

consequences classes (CC) may be established by considering the consequences of failure or malfunction of the

structure as given in Table B1.”

of 88 Pages

consequences of failure or malfunction of the structure. The three importance classes are

linked with the six SDA categories.20

Table 2. Risk-based classification

Class

EN

1990

Reg.

3

Class

Description

SDA Art. 137

Cat. Construction works

CC3

RC3

III High consequences

for loss of human life, or economic, social or

environmental consequences very

great

I,II&

III

Public buildings >5000 m2 or >200

visitor places; residential or mixed use buildings >15m high; highways; technical infrastructure; power plants;

coast protection, industrial buildings >100 workers

CC2

RC2

II Medium consequences for loss of human life,

economic, social or environmental

consequences considerable

IV&V

Public buildings <5000 m2 or <200 visitor places; residential or mixed use buildings <15m high; industrial projects

<100 workers; greening parks <10000 m2; private and V & VI class streets;

cultural heritage with local importance.

CC1

RC1

I Low consequences for loss of human

life, social and environmental

consequences small

or negligible

VI Agricultural buildings; low risk installations; greenhouses<200 m2;

swimming pools<100 m2; supporting walls<2 m; fences<2,2 m;

excavations/embankments <1m & <30 sq m; RES <30 kW; private small structures.

The designs have to be approved as a condition precedent for a building permit21 for

Categories I÷V. The obligatory CA of the design with the zoning and technical requirements

may be implemented by:

1. Expert council at the approving administration (Categories III÷V).

2. Registered consulting company (Categories I÷V).22

Eurocode EN 1990:2002 suggests the DSLs to be linked with the reliability classes.23

20 (n 18) art 34 (4) app 1

21 (n 2) art142(1)

22 (n 2) art 142 (6)

23 (n19) B4 Design supervision differentiation

of 88 Pages

Table 3. DSL

EN 1990 SDA

Class DSL DSL Cat. CA

RC3 DSL3

Extended

Third party checking :

Checking performed by an

organisation different from that which has prepared the

design

DSL3

Extended

I&II Registered consultant

III Expert council or registered

consultant

RC2 DSL2

Normal

Checking by different

persons than those originally

responsible and in accordance with the procedure of the

organisation.

DSL3

Extended

IV&V Expert council or registered

consultant

RC1

DSL1

Normal

Self-checking:

Checking performed by the person who has prepared the

design

DSL1

Normal

VI Self-checking

The minimum design scope for a building permit24 and the SDA DSL is the same for

Categories I÷V. “The necessity for differentiation of the building permit regime based on the

type and use of the construction works is obvious.”25

Conclusion Red Tape Zone A: The design scope and DSL for categories IV and V is not

risk-based and is obviously excessive.

B. The minimum scope and contents of the design for a building

permit are excessive

A building permit is issued on the grounds of the approved technical or detailed design.26 A

building permit may be issued following the approval of the basic design, but the technical

or detailed design has to be approved before implementation27. Only preliminary works, such

as site preparation, may be executed before the technical/detailed design phase is approved.

That is why the technical design phase is the condition for permitting the execution of the

construction works. Using as a benchmark the definitions of the design phases in EN

24 Regulation No. 4 for the scope and the contents of the design (2001). 25 Bakalova & Damyanov Law Firm, ‘Report on the permitting regimes in the SDA’ (2013) 12.

26 (n 2) art 148(4).

27 (n 2) art 142(2).

of 88 Pages

1631128, the technical design phase is much more developed than the basic design phase. It

is almost a detailed design, excluding the shop drawings developed by the suppliers.

As minimum, the following design parts have to be developed and approved in the technical

design phase for all Category I÷V projects:

1. Architecture;

2. Structures;

3. Fire safety;29

4. Geodesy;

5. Landscaping;

6. Energy efficiency;

7. Electrical;

8. HVAC;

9. Plumbing and drainage;

10. Health and Safety Plan;

11. Waste Management Plan.

Each design part contains an explanatory note, drawings and calculations30 (Appendix 3).

Each design document has to be:

signed and stamped by a designer, authorised for the relevant part;31

agreed with signature by the designers of the other parts and by the employer (except

calculations);32

signed and stamped by the qualified expert and the managing director of the

registered CA consultant;33

signed and stamped by the approving authority.34

28 EN 16311:2013: E, 9. 29 Recently simplified: Regulation Iз-1971 Amendment (2014) 69 SG: may be included in other design parts

for buildings <200 m2 footprint, residential and public < 2 storeys and 1-storey industrial, storage and

agricultural <8 m high.

30 (n 24) art 3.

31 (n 2) art 139(3) A physical person authorized to design the relevant part, pursuant to the Chamber of

Architects and Engineers Act (2003) 20 SG. If the design is done by a foreign designer, a Bulgarian designer

has to verify the compliance with local regulations, sign and stamp and take responsibility as a designer under

the law. Though the Act was amended not to discriminate the European designers, some knowledge of

Bulgarian is required, pursuant to Article 53 [Knowledge of languages] of Directive 2005/36/EC.

32 (n 31).

33 (n 2) art 142(9) (registered companies pursuant to Art.166). 34 (n 2) art 145: Chief Architect of the municipality; Regional Governor for works of regional importance;

competent ministers for projects of national importance and/or related to the state defence and security.

of 88 Pages

An authorised technical controller must verify, sign and stamp the structural part.35

A registered person must verify, sign and stamp the energy efficiency part.36

Regulation 424 entered in force in 2001. Additional design parts have been added, following

the harmonisation with EU Directives (Health & Safety Plan in 2004, Energy efficiency part

in 2009, Fire safety part in 2009 and Waste Management Plan in 2014). The minimum scope

and contents of the design have not been reduced to take into account the developments in

the construction sector:

Specialist contractors and suppliers are working as design-build subcontractors for

services, using sophisticated systems with prefabricated components;

Engineering contracts are used on many projects instead of the traditional

measurement contracts with employer’s design;

In most cases the funders require the building permit as a condition precedent for

financing. After that the real development of the design may start, in many cases by

other designers (often the developer sells the project with a building permit and the

new developer always redesigns; in case of an engineering contract, the contractor

develops the design).

Conclusion Red Tape Zone B: The minimum scope and contents of the design to achieve a

building permit are obviously excessive. The prescriptive requirements of the law lead to the

development of at least eight design parts even for a small house. Every design drawing is

stamped at by 3÷5 parties and signed by 12÷16 responsible persons.

C. Overlapping of approvals and legal uncertainty create

bureaucracy

The designs for a building permit have to be approved/agreed on the grounds of37:

1. CA Report;

2. Positive statement of the fire authority for Categories I÷III;

3. Preliminary contracts with the utility operators for connections to technical

infrastructure. In most cases the developer has to finance the connection to the utility

and submit the relevant design for agreement before the main application;

35 (n 2) art 142(10) authorised pursuant to the Chamber of Architects and Engineers Act.

36 (n 2) art 142(11) registered pursuant to Art. 23a(1) of the Energy Efficiency Act (2008).

37 (n 2) art 143&144.

of 88 Pages

4. Entered in force administrative acts, conditions precedent for a building permit

pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act, Biodiversity Act, Cultural Heritage

Act or other special act;

5. Permit for a well and/or water use and/or waste water discharge pursuant to the

Water Act, when public infrastructure is not used.

The CA of the design for a building permit was introduced amending the SDA in 2003 “as an

alternative of the previous regime for agreements with specialized state control bodies”11.

The purpose of the changes was to simplify the existing regime, privatising the expert

activities. The private third party (in 2003 a licensed, from 2012 a registered consulting

company33) issues a CA after the qualified experts check the relevant design part. The list of

qualified experts38 includes as minimum:

1. Architect;

2. Structural Engineer;

3. HVAC engineer;

4. Electrical engineer;

5. Plumbing & sewerage engineer;

6. Road/railroad engineer;

7. Telecommunications engineer;

8. Technology in industrial processes;

9. Sanitary engineer;

10. Fire safety engineer;

11. Geodesy engineer;

12. Geology engineer;

13. Lawyer;

14. Health and safety coordinator.

The CA includes a compliance check with39:

1. The provisions of the detailed zoning plan;

2. The rules and the norms for spatial development;

3. The performance-based EU harmonised essential requirements40:

(1) Regulations and technical specifications regarding:

38 Regulation No. РД-02-20-25 for the registration of consultants (2012) 98 SG. Art.8: Minimum requirements:

MSc, 5 years relevant experience.

39 (n 2) art 142(5).

40 (n 2) art 169.

of 88 Pages

1. Bearing capacity, stability and durability of the building structures

and the earth base at operation and seismic loads;

2. Fire safety;

3. Hygiene, preservation of people’s health and life;

4. Safe use;

5. Protection against noise and environmental protection;

6. Energy efficiency;

(2) Accessibility;

(3) Construction Products Regulation (CPR)41.

4. The mutual co-ordination between the parts of the design;

5. The completeness and the structural compliance of the calculations;

6. The requirements for construction, safe operation and technical supervision of

high risk facilities, if any;

7. Other specific requirements to certain kinds of construction works pursuant to

a regulation, if relevant;

8. Requirements of administrative acts, which are conditions precedent for a

building permit pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act, Biodiversity

Act, Cultural Heritage Act or other special act;

9. The requirements for selective waste separation aiming reuse.

The responsibilities of the registered consultant are backed up with serious sanctions for

infringement of the requirements for CA42.

An overlapping exists in the SDA: the CA of the design with the planning/zoning provisions

is responsibility of the consultant39 and the approving authority43 and is controlled by

DNCC.44

Further, besides the introduced option for a CA by a private consultant, the agreement

regimes in the other, more than 13, linked acts remain:45“The doubling of the functions of the

agreement authorities with the CA of the investment design with the essential requirements

prolongs the period for agreement and leads to an increase of the investment process cost.”

41 Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 OJ L88/5.

42 (n 2) art 237(1)6: 30,000÷150,000 BGN; the registration is repealed pursuant to art 167(5)1 upon 2 sanctions

entered in force.

43 (n 2) art 145(1).

44 ( n2) art 156(2).

45 (n 11)115: linked acts listed for cultural heritage, environmental protection, health, medical facilities, sport,

roads, road traffic, railroad traffic, fire safety, energy efficiency, sea areas & ports, civil air traffic, water, etc.

of 88 Pages

Figure 2. Overlapping of fire safety CA

Besides the overlapping, the legal uncertainty creates additional bureaucracy:

Often it is not clear which are the “other special acts” relevant to the project.46

The regime for design approval is changing several times per year, sometimes

creating additional overlapping through the linked acts.47 There is no time for

structured public consultations and RIA before the voting in Parliament. The hasty

amendments often lead to subsequent amendments and/or unclear texts.

The uncertainty related to the terms “agreement” and “approval” of the design

“creates different practices in different municipalities and confuses the participants

in the investment process.”48 In some municipalities design control is unlawfully

extended beyond the zoning requirements, further overlapping with the regulated

activity of the consultant. Even in some cases the consultant’s CA is doubled by an

expert council’s CA.

Conclusion Red Tape Zone C: the agreements of the design by authorities overlap with the

consultant’s CA; the uncertain law creates creeping bureaucracy, amplified by the lack of

silent approval.

46 Eg there is no criterion when the design of a high building /structure has to be agreed by the Ministry of

Transport. Regulation 14 for the airports (2012) 86 SG, restricts the height of buildings/structures which cut the

flying cone and/or interfere with the radio navigation devices.

47 Eg the assessment for EIA procedures or the fire authority statement for Categoryies I÷III overlapping with

the registered consultants’ assessments.

48 (n 11) 112.

of 88 Pages

D. Bureaucratic regime for permitting design changes during

construction

Substantial deviations, compliant with zoning and technical requirements, have to be

permitted during construction on the grounds of an approved design by an amendment of the

building permit BEFORE their implementation.49

Approving authorities and DNCC often require narrow interpretation of Art.154(2)5

referring to changes of the structure or the type of structural elements and/or loads. Every

change of the foundation type in case of unexpected conditions is treated as a substantial

deviation. The revised design has to be proceeded as a new design: the designer prepares the

design revision, then the authorised technical controller verifies and stamps the structural

design; the employer signs all documents; the fire authority has to to issue a positive

statement for Categories I,II&III; the consultant then prepares a CA report, signs and stamps

all design documents and submits the amended design to the approving authority. The

authority has to issue an approval order and inform DNCC. After 2 weeks the order enters in

force and the works may be executed! All these bureaucratic procedures take about 2 months

and all participants know that in most cases the construction cannot be suspended… The

authorities in this case have no responsibility for the compliance of the structure with the

essential requirements, they are just stamping! The responsible parties are often infringing

the law because it is unreasonable!

Under the previous regime the designer instructed the change via the Order Book (a

registered document kept on site) and the changes were integrated in the as built drawings.

The present regime is so bureaucratic, that it creates a constant violation of the law, followed

by false construction documents, because the obligatory acts for works to be covered have to

be dated after the approval of the design and people on site have to invent a new calendar

and wonder what to do with the concrete log and certificates…

Conclusion Red Tape Zone D: The permitting of substantial deviations compliant with

zoning and technical requirements creates unreasonable delay and disruption, leading to

systematic infringement of the law.

49 (n 2) art 154

of 88 Pages

CHAPTER 3 EU is driving Bulgaria towards better

regulation

“The reduction of the administrative and regulatory burden is a top-priority

for the European Commission.”50

A. Bureaucracy and the general principles of EU law

A.1.Proportionality

The principle of proportionality has originally been established by the ECJ as a general

principle of EC law,51 later narrowly codified in Article 5 (4) of the EU Treaty.52 “The Court

has consistently held that the principle of proportionality is one of the general principles of

Community law... when there is a choice between several appropriate measures recourse

must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate

to the aims pursued.”53 However, with regard to judicial review of the proportionality of a

measure, a broad discretion must be allowed in areas which involve political, economic and

social choices on its part, and in which regulators are called upon to undertake complex

assessments. Consequently, the legality of a measure adopted in those fields can be affected

only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the

competent institution is seeking to pursue.54

The Red Tape Zones A, B and D, identified in Chapter 2, may arguably infringe the general

principle of proportionality and ECJ practice.

In line with ECJ practice, the Bulgarian regime, as demonstrated in Chapter 2, may arguably

infringe the general principle of proportionality in the Red Tape Zones A, B and D. It is

proposed that a risk-based approach is undertaken in the Zones A and D and a performance-

based approach in Zone B, so securing the achievement of the aims of building control with

less resources.

50 <http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/business-environment/administrative-burdens/index_en.htm>

accessed 25 September 2014.

51 First recognised by ECJ in Case C8/55 Federation Charbonniere de Belgique v High Authority [1954] ECR

245 para 11.

52 Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union [2012] OJ C326/01.

53 Case C-331/88 The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State for Health ex

parte Fedesa and Others [1990] ECR I-4023, para 13.

54 Case C-84/94 United Kingdom v Council [1996] ECR I-5755, para 58.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_%28law%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_principles_of_European_Union_law#cite_note-11

of 88 Pages

A.2.Legal certainty

“On the grounds of the case law of the ECJ, legal certainty can be classified as a general principle of EC law.”55

The principle of legal certainty requires the legislation to be certain and its application

foreseeable by individuals. Every measure having legal effects must be clear and precise and

must be brought to the notice of the person concerned.56

It can be seen from Chapter 2 that the principle is infringed in Red Tape Zone C, in three

areas:

1. Frequent changes of legislation, sometimes without consultations (e.g. 10 times

annually);

2. CA depends on uncertain list of frequently changing special laws;

3. Uncertain criteria for CA of the design with special laws.

B. Cutting the Red Tape in line with Strategy 2020

“Good regulation may promote the development of the industry: poor regulation, over-regulation or incompatible regulation will hinder it.”57

In 2006 the European Council explicitly recognised the crucial role of SMEs in creating

growth and better jobs in Europe und underlined the need for a simple and transparent

regulatory environment. EC published the Report Models to Reduce the Disproportionate

Regulatory Burden on SMEs.4 The Model is grouped in ten categories, most of them capable

of cutting the Red Tape in the zones identified in Chapter 2:

Size-related exemptions;

Reduced obligations;

Simplified obligations;

Electronic services;

Administrative coordination, especially one-stop shops.

The Europe 2020 strategy is about delivering smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The

reduction of the bureaucracy in the building control process is in line with its targets.

55 Juha Raitio, The Principle of Legal Certainty in EC Law (Kluwer Academic Publishers ISBN 1-4020-1217-9

2003) 125.

56 Case T-115/94 Opel Austria v Council [1997] ECR II-39.

57 ‘Screening of National Building Regulations’ch 4.3,

<http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/construction/studies/national-building-regulations_en.htm> accessed 6

August 2014.

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/priorities/smart-growth/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/priorities/sustainable-growth/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/priorities/inclusive-growth/index_en.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opel_Austria_v_Council&action=edit&redlink=1

of 88 Pages

“Bulgaria should focus on removing unjustified or disproportionate requirements in some

sectors (such as construction and professional services), and generally seek to simplify

administrative procedures.”58

The EU Council examined the national reform and the convergence programmes and

recommended under Art.6 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 that Bulgaria should take

action within the period “2013-2014 to take further steps to improve the business

environment, by cutting red tape, implementing an e-government strategy…”59

The following EU targets will drive the needed changes to reduce waste in the design

approval procedures:

Half the population to use eGovernment by 2015

Table 4. EGovernment use (Source: EUROSTAT) 60

Country Bulgaria UK France Germany Italy

% 2013 23 41 60 49 21

Currently only France from the compared states is above the target. In Italy and Bulgaria

online public services are used by less than a quarter of the population. The electronic

submission of design for approval is one of the criteria for the MCA in Chapter 6.

Open Data policy

The EC is publishing guidelines to help Member States benefit from the revised Directive on

the Re-Use of Public Sector Information (PSI Directive). The overwhelming majority of re-

use is digital.61

58 COM(2013) 352 final, ch 3.4, Recommendation 5. 59 Council Recommendation on Bulgaria’s 2013 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion

on Bulgaria’s 2013 convergence programme for 2012-2016 (2013) 10625/1/13. 60 EC, ‘Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2014 - Developments in eGovernment in the EU 2014’,

<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/scoreboard-2014-developments-egovernment-eu-2014> accessed

26 July 2014.

0%

50%

100%

DK

NL

SE FI FR LU AT SI BE

DE EE IE ES

EU

28

UK

PT

HU EL

LV LT SK MT

CY

CZ

HR PL

BG IT RO

eGovernment use by citizens in the last 2 years

2012

2013

Source: EUROSTAT

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/scoreboard-2014-developments-egovernment-eu-2014

of 88 Pages

Table 5. PSI Scoreboard for the compared states


PSI Overall Score 215 585 505 400 485

The Open Data policy would facilitate the compliance with the zoning requirements.

Harmonisation of technical standards

The CPR41 is laying down harmonized conditions for the CA of construction products. As

part of the Better Regulation initiative, CPR introduces simplified procedures, which reduce

the costs.62 The EN Eurocodes are a series of 10 European Standards, EN 1990 - EN 1999,

providing a common approach for the design of construction works. They are the

recommended means of giving a presumption of conformity with the essential requirements

for design and construction.63 EU Directives harmonise the technical requirements for fire

safety, energy efficiency, water use, preservation of environment and natural resources,

health and safety, introducing performance criteria for CA.

A single framework with core indicators for building performance

This would further develop the harmonised performance based criteria for CA of the relevant

construction works. It would reduce the costs of assessing the environmental performance of

buildings.64

Point of Single Contact (PSC)

“The potential of the PSC in terms of efficiency gains, reduced transaction costs and time, and savings for the public administration is far from being fully realised, as implementation is highly unsatisfactory. In particular, the assignment of responsibilities within public

administration departments is unclear and there is no proper system of cooperation between competent authorities.” 58

The future electronic submission of designs using PSC would cut Red Tape.

REFIT – making EU law lighter, simpler and less costly

REFIT is the EC’s Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme. Action is taken to make

EU law simpler and to reduce regulatory costs, so contributing to a clear, stable and

predictable regulatory framework supporting growth and jobs.

61 EC Press Releases: 17 July 2014<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-encourages-re-

use-public-sector-data> accessed 26 July 2014.

62 <http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/construction/ index_en.htm> accessed 7 August 2014.

63 <http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> accessed 7 August 2014.

64 COM(2014) 445 final 5.

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-encourages-re-use-public-sector-data


http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

of 88 Pages

Recasting of construction law, incorporating the requirements of the linked laws in

consolidating text, may reduce the administrative burden and bring legal certainty in Red

Tape Zone C.

Zones A, B and D may be improved by “self-regulation” (“voluntary agreements or codes

of conduct between private bodies”) and/ or “co-regulation” (“the desired outcome is set

down in law, but the decision on how to achieve it is left to the parties involved”).65

C. Forecast

“In the last 10 to 15 years, the dominant trends identified in the building permit procedure

were a decrease in the types of construction works submitted to building authorities’ control

during plan approval, and the reduction in the maximum building permit procedure times.“6

Extrapolating the trend, I may forecast improvement in Red Tape Zone A, as well as overall

simplification of the regime.

The World Bank ranked the economies on their ease of doing business from 1 to 189. A high

ranking represents difficult regulatory environment.13

Table 6. World Bank Ranking for 2013


Ease of Doing Business Rank 58 10 38 21 65

Dealing with Construction Permits 118 27 92 12 112

“Coherent and transparent rules, efficient processes and adequate allocation of resources are especially important in sectors where safety is at stake. Construction is one of them. In

an effort to ensure building safety while keeping compliance costs reasonable, governments around the world have worked on consolidating permitting requirements.”14

Obviously, Bulgaria has to catch up with the simplification of the building permit regime.

Bulgaria has planned regulatory and administrative reforms cutting Red Tape, in line with

EU policy. The National Programme for Reforms (2011-2015) implements Strategy 2020.

Hundreds of measures for reducing bureaucracy have already been implemented, but not in

the Red Tape Zones, identified in Chapter 2. 13 measures for simplification of the

65 <http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/simplification/index_en.htm> accessed 6 August 2014.

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/simplification/index_en.htm

of 88 Pages

investment process are proposed as a SDA amendment, most of them related to the design

approval.66&67

The implementation of the Strategy for the development of the e-government for 2014-2020

shall increase the number of electronic services with 57% until 2020.68

The Council of Ministers launched public procurement procedures for services, financed

under OPAC, aiming simplification of the building control and creation of PSC for several

linked regimes.69

Conclusion: Bulgaria made commitments to reduce the administrative and regulatory

burden and has to catch up with other EU members, simplifying the regime in the Red Tape

Zones, identified in Chapter 2.

66 Parliament, ‘Investment Design Commission regular meeting MoM No.19’ (18 June 2014)

<www.parliament.bg/bg/parliamentarycommittees/members/2069/steno/ID/3343> accessed 8 August 2014:

Proposed SDA amendment, including change of use without construction works exemption and elimination of

doubling functions.

67 Ministry of Finance, ‘Europe 2020: National Programme for Reforms, Update 2014’ (2014) 28.

68 (n 67)29.

69

<www.google.bg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=

http%3A%2F%2Fwww.government.bg%2Ffce%2F001%2F0235%2Ffiles%2F2810_pril_Dok_D2%2520_KB1

1_31_1.doc&ei=1KnkU5L8HKjMyAOutYGIBg&usg=AFQjCNG2WlXwYJX80rrszNXoXl0 BM3mwPw> &

<www.google.bg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=

http%3A%2F%2Fwww.government.bg%2Ffce%2F001%2F0235%2Ffiles%2FDok_D3%2520_KB11_31_1_%

252005_11_%252020131.docx&ei=EqXkU4mjBIbIyAP364LQAQ&usg=AFQjCNHerlhzg4gGuxtCuGHBtfH

ySM_LUQ> accessed 8 August 2014.

http://www.parliament.bg/bg/parliamentarycommittees/members/2069/steno/ID/3343

http://www.google.bg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.government.bg%2Ffce%2F001%2F0235%2Ffiles%2F2810_pril_Dok_D2%2520_KB11_31_1.doc&ei=1KnkU5L8HKjMyAOutYGIBg&usg=AFQjCNG2WlXwYJX80rrszNXoXl0BM3mwPw



http://www.google.bg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.government.bg%2Ffce%2F001%2F0235%2Ffiles%2FDok_D3%2520_KB11_31_1_%252005_11_%252020131.docx&ei=EqXkU4mjBIbIyAP364LQAQ&usg=AFQjCNHerlhzg4gGuxtCuGHBtfHySM_LUQ




of 88 Pages

CHAPTER 4 Building control regimes

“Smart regulation ensures that standards are met while making compliance easy and accessible to all.”13

A. Assumptions for the comparison

In order to compare the efficiency of the procedures for control of the design, I have

assumed that the compared regimes achieve the same compliance with building regulations.

There is no evidence to the contrary. The CEBC has recently reported that in 16 countries

(among them France, England and Germany) the building control assists in reducing

building defects and enhancing building quality, but there is little hard evidence to

demonstrate how effective these systems are in delivering these aims. The results are often

only visible after some disaster when the relative performance of different buildings can be

compared. “Buildings built to modern Building Regulations are often seen to perform better

than older ones or ones built in breach of the Regulations.”70 The first collaborative

research, surveying 198,338 projects, controlled by public and private bodies in England,

proves that the number of compliance interventions is huge (about 1.4 for 20 days per

project). 28% of the interventions are of high importance: either threatening health and

safety or seriously affecting the performance of the building.71

Whether the building regulations achieve similar performance criteria is a complex issue that

is beyond the scope of the present study. I have assumed it to be true, as a result of the

application of the Eurocodes, the CPR41 and the implementation of EU Directives in the

national legislations.

During the regimes’ overview, I have identified the following data for the MCA:

Minimum design documents;

Number of procedures;

Overall minimum time;

Number of design hard copies proceeded;

Silent refusal/approval;

Suspension of construction in case of structural changes.

Due to the word limit:

70 CEBC, Value of Building Control, Building Control Report, October 2012, Issue 1.

71 LABC&ACAI Compliance Actions Survey (2012) <http://approvedinspectors.org.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2012/03/LABC-ACAI-Compliance-Actions-Research-Report-for-BCA-March-2012-

Final.pdf> accessed 12 August 2014.




of 88 Pages

1. I compared the procedures for design approval after the EIA and planning

permission, until the entitlement to commence construction.

2. The procedures for connections to utilities are beyond the scope of the study.

3. Agreements of designs in special cases like road/railroad/air traffic interference,

cultural heritage, etc. are also beyond the scope of the study.

B. Bulgaria

B.1. LEGAL STRUCTURE

SDA is the building control legal framework. The scope and contents of design is specified

by Regulation 4 (see Chapter 2).

B.2. DESIGN APPROVAL

Step 1: 11 design parts with the scope and contents

listed in Appendix 3 are agreed by the fire authority.

Step 2: A technical controller verifies the structural

design. A registered person verifies the energy

efficiency. A registered consultant prepares a CA

report in parallel with Step 1.

Step 3: 3 copies are submitted to the approving

authority with the CA report and fire authority

positive statement. The approving authority

approves/rejects the design within 14 days.72 Silent

approval is not applicable.

Step 4: The approving authority issues a building

permit.73

Step 5: The authority informs DNCC within 7

days.74 The building permit enters in force.75

Figure 3. High Risk Cat. I÷III

72 (n 2) art 144.

73 (n 2) art 148(4).

74 (n 2) art 149(5).

75 (n 2) art 156.

Step 5

Entering in force (Day 50)

Step 4

Building permit (Day 36)

Step 3

Design approval (Day 29)

Step 2

CA (Day 15)

Step 1

Fire safety agreement (Day 14)

Design (containing 11 parts)

of 88 Pages

Figure 4.Medium risk (Cat.IV&V) CA by consultant

The fire authority statement is not

required. The other 4 steps are followed

with the same scope and contents of the

design as for the high risk categories.

Figure 5.Cat. III,IV&V CA by expert council

An expert council may do the CA

within the design approval

procedure within 1 month.

Figure 6. Low risk Cat.VI

A structural statement is submitted for the

structures; in addition, a statement of an

electrical engineer and/or heat efficiency

engineer is presented for small RES with

the application for a building permit,

pursuant to SDA art 147(2). The high risk

Steps 4 and 5 must be followed.

The same steps have to be followed for categories I÷V for essential deviation. The revised

design proceeded for approval is in the scope of the changes.

Step 4


Step 3


Step 2

Design approval (Day 21)

Step 1

CA (Day 7)

Design (containing 10/11 parts)

Step 3


Step 2


Step 1

Design approval, incl. CA (Day 30)

Design (containing 10/11 parts)

Step 2


Step 1


Application

of 88 Pages

C. England

C.1. LEGAL STRUCTURE

The Building Act 1984 is the parent for the main legal rules concerned with the

implementation of building control. The other legislative source is Part III of the

Environmental Protection Act 1990, containing the rules of statutory nuisance.

The Building Act 1984 brought in the private-sector Approved Inspectors (AIs)76 and the

“Competent person” (CP) scheme. The Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004 and

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 extended the 1984 Act, implementing EU

initiatives.

There are 3 main sets of regulations under the 1984 Act:

The Building Regulations 201077: Schedule 1 contains a set of functional

requirements for building performance, grouped in 14 lettered Parts;

The Building (Approved Inspectors) Regulations 2010;

The Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010.

The 1984 Act applies to all buildings, with some exemptions (those occupied by the Crown,

educational buildings and buildings of statutory undertakers78, buildings not frequented by

people, temporary buildings, extensions less than 30 m2, greenhouses, etc.79). The

Regulations apply when there is either building work or material change of use.

Any work in the CP categories, undertaken by those registered with the relevant trade

organisations, no longer needs to be notified in advance to the Local Authority (LA). CP

schemes may apply to gas, plumbing, water supply, heating, hot water systems, pressure

testing, electrical installations, roofing and insulation.80

DCLG “has enacted a package of deregulatory changes to the building regulations in 2012

to make sure they continue to be up to date and effective… Alongside this DCLG process, the

76 88 AIs registered <http://cic.org.uk/services/register.php> accessed 10 August 2014. From 31 March 2014

DCLG transferred responsibility for approving AIs to CICAIR, a subsidiary of the Construction Industry

Council. < http://cic.org.uk/news/article.php?s=2014-03-27-cic-launches-cicair-limited> accessed 11 August

2014. 77 SI 2010/2214.

78 Building Act 1984, s 4.

79 (n 77) pt 2 reg 9.

80 DCLG has authorised 20 CP schemes < www.gov.uk/competent-person-scheme-current-schemes-and-how-

schemes-are-authorised#current-schemes> accessed 10 August 2014.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-building-act-1984-building-amendment-regulations-2012-circular-02-2012

http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Approved_inspectors

http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Construction_Industry_Council

http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Construction_Industry_Council

http://cic.org.uk/news/article.php?s=2014-03-27-cic-launches-cicair-limited

https://www.gov.uk/competent-person-scheme-current-schemes-and-how-schemes-are-authorised#current-schemes

https://www.gov.uk/competent-person-scheme-current-schemes-and-how-schemes-are-authorised#current-schemes

of 88 Pages

Cabinet Office’s Red Tape Challenge has also looked at the potential to reduce the amount

of regulation in this area.”81

C.2. DESIGN APPROVAL

“The role of checking that Building Regulations are being complied with falls to Building

Control Bodies.”82 (BCBs)

The design approval process depends on whether the developer uses LA or AI as BCB.

C.2.1. Traditional scheme: LA as BCB

Local authorities (LAs) were the main BCBs until 1984. The person planning work coming

within the Building Regulations has two choices under this form of supervision:

Building notice83

A building notice is accompanied by a description of the proposed building work and

particulars of the location. In the case of the erection/extension of a building, Regulation 13

requires additionally:

(a) a site plan to a scale of not less than 1:1250;

(b) a statement specifying the number of storeys and

(c) particulars of the provision to be made for the drainage and the steps to be taken to

comply with any local enactment.84

Later the LA may request plans in order to discharge its building control functions.

Serving a simple building notice is not applicable for buildings to which the Regulatory

Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies (eg hotels, factories, offices) or buildings fronting

onto private streets or buildings over sewers.85

Full plans application86

Electronic submission is possible.87

81 <www.gov.uk/government/policies/providing-effective-building-regulations-so-that-new-and-altered-

buildings-are-safe-accessible-and-efficient> accessed 25 September 2014.

82 DCLG Planning Portal <http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/buildingregulations/howtogetapproval> accessed

10 August 2014.

83 (n 77) reg 13.

84 (n 83). 85 (n 77) pt 3 reg 12.

86 (n 77) reg 14.

87 Eg Full plans application is submitted in Kensington and Chelsea by e-mail to [email protected]

< www.rbkc.gov.uk/subsites/buildingcontrol/submitapplication.aspx> accessed 10 August 2014.

http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/building-regulations-and-related-legislation/

mailto:[email protected]

of 88 Pages

Full plans shall include the documents required for a building notice application, plus any

other plans which are necessary to show that the work would comply with the Building

Regulations. Besides the site plan, the design documents usually include calculations, floor

plans, sections and elevations to a scale of 1:100 (or 1:200 for very large buildings) and

details to a scale of 1:20. The minimum contents and scope is not prescribed: the design

documents have to contain enough information enabling the BCB to check their compliance

with the technical requirements, specified in Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations:

Part A. Structures

Part B. Fire Safety

Part C. Site preparation and resistance to contaminants and moisture

Part D. Toxic substances

Part E. Resistance to the passage of sound

Part F. Ventilation

Part G. Sanitation, Hot Water Safety and Water Efficiency

Part H. Drainage and waste disposal

Part J. Combustion appliances and fuel storage systems

Part K. Protection from falling, collision and impact

Part L. Conservation of fuel and power

Part M. Access to and use of Buildings

Part N. Glazing - safety in relation to impact, opening and cleaning

Part P. Electrical safety.

If full plans are deposited and the fee is paid, the LA has 5 weeks to pass or reject them,

unless both sides agree to extension of time.88 The LA usually subcontracts the verification

of the structural calculations to private parties.89 The LA approves the design within 5

weeks, including consultations with other authorities (e.g. fire 90and sewerage).Failure to

reply is deemed approval. The developer may commence work on his own risk upon

submission.

88 (n 78) s 16(12).

89 Philip Britton, ‘The State, the Building Code and the Courts: Prevention or Cure?’ (SCL (UK) Paper D152a

December 2013) 15 “This was already the practice in the 1980s in England & Wales; the BCB had asked

consulting engineers to report on the plans submitted for Mr.Murphy’s new house.” Murphy v Brentwood DC

[1991] 1 AC 398 (UKHL).

90 DCLG: London, Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005: Guidance Note No. 1 (2007) 35 Art 45

provides for consultation between LA and enforcing authorities for the Order in respect of plans deposited with

LA. Regulation 12 of the SI 2010/2215 makes similar provision for consultation by AI.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2215/contents/made

of 88 Pages

C.2.2. Private certification: AI

The developer and AI jointly serve a notice on the LA opting for private certification,

enclosing “such plans of the work as may be prescribed”91 and other information about the

proposed work. The LA has 10 days to accept or reject the notice. If the notice is accepted,

LA’s powers are suspended for as long as the notice remains in force. During this time AI

has a duty under the Regulations to take such steps as are reasonable to enable him to be

satisfied that the substantive requirements of the Building Regulations are complied with.

Unlike the LA, the AI has no power to relax them.

The AI takes responsibility for ensuring compliance with Building Regulations and for

certifying this to the LA, but the AI has no enforcement power, which remains with the LA.

Private certification is possible only where the AI has adequate liability insurance. Approval

may be limited to certain types of building only.

The AI can issue a Plans Certificate, if requested to do so by the developer.92 If the AI

believes the Regulations are not being complied with, he/she can cancel the original notice

and notify the LA, whose powers to inspect and take enforcement action then resume.

To be more conservative93, I use the Full plans application procedure for the comparison,

though the private certification may be less burdensome.94

BCBs approve changes during the inspections before the completion of construction.95 If the

AI acts as BCB, then an amendment notice is given to the LA, who accepted the initial

notice. “The amendment notice is accompanied by such plans of the proposed variation as

may be prescribed”.96

91 (n 78) s 47. 92 (n 78) s 50.

93 Association of Consultant AIs: accounting for about 20% of all building control work

<http://approvedinspectors.org.uk/about-approved-inspectors/why-approved-inspectors/> accessed 10 August

2014.

94 DCLG, Proposed changes to the building control system: Consultation stage impact assessment (ISBN: 978-

1-4098-3258-4 2012) 13 “The relationship between Approved Inspectors and their clients is not controlled but

is a matter for negotiation between them. In many cases Approved Inspectors would not ask for full plans.” 95 Jose Anon, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Principal Building Control Surveyor: “LAs were more

rigorous, but not any longer, as a result of the new duel regime, introducing private AIs.”

96 (n 78) s 51A.

http://approvedinspectors.org.uk/about-approved-inspectors/why-approved-inspectors/

of 88 Pages

D. France

D.1. LEGAL STRUCTURE

The building permit regime is regulated by the Town Planning Code:97

Three types of permits are codified:

Building permit (permis de construire: PC);

Building & management permit (permis d'aménager: PA );98

Demolition permit (permis de démolir: PD).99

Low risk construction works (5÷ 20sq m100, height <12 m; <5 m2, height >12m etc)

may be executed subject to a preliminary declaration (déclaration préalable: DP).101

Smaller buildings (<5 m2, height <12 m), swimming pools <10 sq m, temporary

works, etc, and classified sites that are controlled under different regimes, are exempt

from any formalities.102

The main other legislative source is the Building and Housing Code.103 It specifies the

requirements for buildings and empowers private technical controllers (contrôleur

technique)104 to monitor compliance with the safety and accessibility standards.105 The

technical control is mandatory for certain buildings exposed to natural or technological

hazards. The building control in France is risk-based and underpinned by the mandatory

decennial liability insurance system106, which results in the use of technical controllers in

most cases. The Spinetta Law107 provided a legal framework for creating technical control

agencies. “Compliance with regulations has improved dramatically since the Spinetta Law

was implemented.”108

97 Code de l’urbanisme, book IV pt II ch Ier. 98 (n 97) art L421-2, R421-19: applicable for common facilities, amusement parks, sport groungs etc.

99 (n 97) art L421-3.

100 (n 97) art R 421-17 f: 40 m2 footprint, less than 170 m2 total built up area, where PLU (Plan local

d’urbanisme) is available.

101 (n 97) art L421-7.

102 (n 97) art L421-8, R421-2.

103 Code de la construction et de l’habitation , Consolidated Version 6 August 2014.

104 44 bodies are authorized per 7 August 2014: Register on the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development

and Energy web site <http://www.developpement-

durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Liste_controleurs_techniques_07082014.pdf> accessed 12 August 2014.

105 (n 103) art L111-23÷26.

106 (n 103) art L111-28.

107 Law on Liability and Insurance in Construction JORF 5 January 1978, 188.

108 World Bank, ‘What Role Should Risk-Based Inspections Play in Construction?’ Doing Business 2014, 48.

of 88 Pages

The building control level is linked with several risk-based classifications:

Prevention of seismic risks

Pursuant to the Environmental Code "normal risk" class includes buildings, equipment and

facilities for which the consequences of an earthquake remain confined to their occupants

and their immediate vicinity.109 For the purposes of prevention of seismic risk to buildings,

equipment and facilities of the "normal risk" class, the country is divided into five zones of

increasing seismicity.110

The projects are distributed among four categories of importance (I÷IV increasing).111

Public buildings (établissements recevant du public: ERP)

The 5 categories for public buildings are based on the number of people they can house:112

1: over 1500;

2: 701÷1500;

3: 301÷700;

4: 300 and below, except those in category V;

5: less than the minimum number set by the safety regulations.

High-rise buildings

Their construction, modification and change of use requires special authorisation, received

as an agreement within the building permit procedure.113 The competent authority verifies

the design for compliance with the safety requirements. Buildings are defined as high-rise

when the highest floor used for fire prevention is:

50 m above ground for dwellings;

28 m for other buildings;

Adjacent buildings, if not isolated pursuant to Art. R122-4.114

High-rise buildings are categorised according to their use and height.115

109 Environmental Code (2014) art R563-3 I.

110 (n 109) art R563-4. 111 (n 109) II.

112 (n 103) art R 123-19.

113 (n 103) art L122-1.

114 (n 103) art L122-2.

115 (n 103) art L122-5.

of 88 Pages

D.2. DESIGN APPROVAL

The identification of the minimum design documents is provided in the application forms

that are accessible on the government web site.116

The minimum design documents for an individual house building permit (permis de

costruire une maison individuelle: PCMI), submitted in four copies to the mayor, are117:

1. Situation map118;

2. Site plan;

3. Section of the construction and the terrain;

4. Description note of the land;

5. Elevations and a roof plan;

6. Architectural view of the project in the landscape;

7. Picture of the land near the construction;

8. Picture of the background.

Depending on the characteristics and location of the project, additional statements and/or

certificates may be required (certifying compliance with environmental, risk prevention

requirements, energy performance criteria, thermal regulations, connections to non-

collective utilities, etc). A certificate issued by a technical controller is required for buildings

located in high risk seismic119 and cyclone areas.120

From 2014 a Feasibility study of energy supplies is also required for new buildings.121

The minimum design documents for PC and DP include the same list, but only 2 copies are

required for DP.

The DP is issued within 1 month, PCMI/PD within 2 months and PC/PA within 3 months.

The time period is increased where special authorisation is required (eg for ERP). Silence of

the administration means a favourable decision. A certificate may be issued upon request,

stating the date of the building permit or non-objection to the DP. The permit is an

administrative authorisation, subject to the rights of third parties.

116 <http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/particuliers/N319.xhtml> accessed 13 August 2014.

117 (n 97) art R431.

118 May be generated by the PSI available on <www.geoportail.gouv.fr>.

119 (n 103) art R111-38-4: upper floor>8 m above ground in seismic areas 4&5. 120 (n 97) art R431-16.

121 (n 103) art R111-22: with total built-up area > 50 m2, except temporary and low energy consumption

agricultural/industrial buildings.

of 88 Pages

Authorisation to construct ERP

The developer submits a separate application to the mayor, including 3 copies of:122

a) Accessibility file:

A three-dimensional drawing for the outdoor access;

A floor plan;

An explanatory note.

b) Safety file:123

A specification of materials;

One or more plans showing evacuation routes.

The period allowed for review is five months. Within this period, the approving authority

transfers one of the copies to the Safety and Accessibility Commission for an opinion, which

is considered favourable, if not issued within two months. The authorisation is also

considered to be granted, if there is no response within the five month period. However, the

failure to notify is implied rejection, in case of an application for derogation. Once granted,

the building permit serves as an authorisation to construct.124

The mandatory technical control verifying the compliance of the design with the technical

requirements125 encompasses: 126

1. ERP 1÷4 category112 (excluding those with minimum visitors);

2. Buildings in seismic areas 2, 3, 4 or 5111 Categories of importance109 III and IV and

buildings with upper floor more than 8 m above ground in seismic areas 4 or 5, etc.

Authorisation to construct a High-rise building

The developer submits a separate application to the prefect, including 3 hard copies of:

A technical notice with safety measures;

A descriptive statement specifying the design parameters.

The period of examination of the application is five months. The authorisation is considered

granted in the absence of notification of an express decision. The authorisation also certifies

compliance with accessibility, fire and panic prevention requirements. (The prefect transfers

122 (n 103) art R-111-19. 123 (n 103) art R-123-22. 124 (n 103) art R-111-19-15. 125 (n 103) art R-111-39.

126 (n 103) art R-111-38.

of 88 Pages

one of the copies to the Safety and Accessibility Commission for an opinion, which is

considered favourable, if not issued within two months.) The receipt evidencing the

submission is attached to the building permit application. The prefect notifies the competent

authority (prefect for public, mayor for other high-rise buildings) for his decision.127 The

building permit serves as an authorisation to construct.128

E. Germany

E.1. LEGAL STRUCTURE

The responsibility for construction law is divided between federal and state governments.

The planning law is federal law. Each federal state issues its own building act (Bauordnung),

empowering the competent minister to issue Bauvorlagenverordnung: a regulation

specifying the design documents for a building permit application. “However, most of the

states have adopted a specimen building regulation issued by the state ministries which also

makes provision for certain standardization within this field.”129 I have reviewed the

regulations of Brandenburg130 and Bayern131, but due to the word limit, I refer here solely to

the Brandenburg sources of law.

Buildings have different risk-based classifications in different states, depending on their

height.132 The building control procedures are linked with the buildings’ classification:

Building permit (Baugenehmigung)133

In most cases a building permit is required for the construction, alteration, demolition, or

change of use of a building. The BCB (Bauaufsichtsbehörde)134 verifies compliance with the

planning135 and building regulations, as well as with all other applicable laws.

127 (n 103) art R-122-11.

128 (n 103) art L-122-1. 129 Economic Development Agency of the German State of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), ‘Construction

Laws’

<www.nrwinvest.com/Business_Guide_englisch/The_Legal_Framework/Planning_and_Building1/index.ph p?

Auswahl=%2Fnrwinvest_deutsch%2Findex.php&themabutton=Go> accessed 17 August 2014.

130 Brandenburg Building Act (BbgBO) 14 GVBl. I (2008)226.

131 Bavarian Building Act (BayBO) GVBl. I (2007)588.

132 (n 130) para 2 (3): Buildings’ height: Low: upper floor < 7 m above ground; Medium: >7 m< 22 m; High: >

22 m.; (n 131) Art.2 (3): 5 categories: Cat.I agricultural/forestry < 7 m high, <2 units< 400 sq m; Cat.II<7 m

high,<2 units, <400 sq m; Cat.III:others <7 m high; Cat.IV: <13 m high, <400 sq m; Cat.V: others.

133 (n 130) para 56.

134 The structure, competence and responsibilities are defined in the state law, eg part 5 (n 130). LAs (Die

amtsfreien Gemeinden und die Ӓmter) may be authorised to issue building permits.

135 Codification in the Federal Building Code (BauGB) 1960 BGBI.I (2004) 954.

of 88 Pages

German law recognizes the principle of procedural merger. The Bauaufsichtsbehörde

verifies the building permit application and confirms the receipt within two weeks. After that

it requires the agreement of the other authorities. They issue their agreements one month

after the request, unless the federal laws provide for longer periods. The period for

simplified and building notice procedures is two weeks. Silent agreement is applicable

and a conference meeting may be held to accelerate the procedure. The environmental act

deadlines are applicable when EIA is required. The Bauaufsichtsbehörde decides the

building permit within one month after the agreements .

Simplified permit procedure (Vereinfachtes Baugenehmigungsverfahren)136

The procedure is applicable for low/medium rise buildings, conforming to a valid

development plan (Bebauungsplan)137, with available infrastructure. The

Bauaufsichtsbehörde verifies compliance with the development plan and other applicable

laws. It issues the building permit within one month.

Building Notice (Bauanzeigeverfahren)138

The procedure is applicable for low rise buildings, conforming to a valid development plan

(Bebauungsplan)139, with available connections to utilities. The Bauaufsichtsbehörde

confirms the receipt of the application within one week. Construction may commence one

month after the submission of the application, if the Bauaufsichtsbehörde has not rejected it.

The neighbours may review the design at the Bauaufsichtsbehörde.140

Lowest risk projects are exempt from any formalities.141

E.2. DESIGN APPROVAL

The application must include three copies of:142

1. Cadastre map extract (1:1000 scale).

2. A situation plan (Lageplan), including information about existing and planned

buildings/structures/technical infrastructure/trees.

136 (n 130) para 57.

137 (n 135) para 30 (1)&(2).

138 (n 130) para 58.

139 (n 137).

140 (n 130) para 64. 141 (n 130) para 55: agricultural/forestry buildings <150 sq m, <5 m high; greenhouses <150 sq m, <5 m high;

weekend houses <50 sq m, < 4 m high, etc.

142 Pursuant to the BbgBauVorlV, 25 GVBl. II (2009) 494.

http://www.bravors.brandenburg.de/sixcms/media.php/land_bb_bravors_01.a.111.de/GVBl_II_25_2009.pdf

of 88 Pages

3. Construction drawings (Bauzeichnungen), including floor layouts, sections and

elevations.

4. A construction description (Baubeschreibung): a technical specification, evidencing

compliance with planning and technical requirements.

5. Stability proof (Standsicherheitsnachweis), including structural calculations,

drawings and explanations.

6. Fire safety proof (Brandschutznachweis), if not included in the above documents.

7. Site layouts in two copies with information about water and energy supply, sewage

disposal and road access, if public infrastructure is not available.

8. Specific additional documents, if other agreements shall be secured, plus additional

copy of the above documents for each authority.

The above document requirements are the same for the three procedures. For the Simplified

and Building notice procedures the developer (Bauherr) submits the same design documents

to the Bauaufsichtsbehörde, plus a designer’s compliance statement, certifying that no

derogation is required. Item 8 is not applicable for the Building notice procedure.

The Bauaufsichtsbehörde appoints an internal or independent test engineer (Prüfingenieure)

for the verification of the fire safety and structural stability. The privatisation of the process

is the subject of an ongoing debate.143 In some states the Bauaufsichtsbehörde is responsible

only for the control of higher-risk “special structures”. For the other projects the developer

appoints a private test engineer or in case of standard low-risk structures the designer fills in

a criteria-catalogue. In some states the verification is fully privatised, while in others is still

responsibility of the Bauaufsichtsbehörde.

The regulations already enable electronic submission of designs for building permits, but the

online application process has just started in some municiplalities. Figure 7 represents the

progress in Brandenburg:

The green upper circle means that the application status can be viewed online.

The middle circle shows whether electronic documents will be accepted.

The lower circle indicates whether a full electronic submission is possible via the

portal www.bauantrag.brandenburg.de.

143 Detlef Sagebiel, ‘Technical verification and building permit procedures’,Der Prüfingenieur (April 2005) 51:

compares the public and private testing cons and pros and recommends privatisation for low/medium-risk

buildings.

http://www.bauantrag.brandenburg.de/

of 88 Pages

Figure 7. Building permits online procedure Brandenburg November 2012144

F. Italy

F.1. LEGAL STRUCTURE

The main legislative source is the Consolidated Building Act (T.U.E.), issued as a President’s

Decree.145 It codifies the building permit regimes and empowers the regions to adopt by-

laws. The Act empowers the municipalities to control the construction activities.146

The following public works are not in the ambit of the T.U.E.:147

Works that require coordination of several authorities for their construction;

Works executed by the state administration;

Municipal works, validated pursuant to art.47 of DP 554/1999.

144 Ministry of Infrastructure and Agriculture

<http://www.mil.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.299592.de> accessed 17 August 2014.

145 (2001) 245 GU supp 239.

146 (n 145) art 2(L).

147 (n 145) art 7(L).

http://www.mil.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.299592.de

of 88 Pages

T.U.E. establishes the PSC (S.U.E. or S.U.A.P.), which may issue the building permit,

securing all necessary agreements, required by special laws. The 2011 amendment of T.U.E.

introduced electronic submission of applications.148

Repairs and temporary works are exempt from permitting.149

Reconstructions, internal changes and/or change of use in commercial premises, outdoor

pavements/finishing, solar panels servicing the buildings are also exempt from permitting,

but subject to prior work commencement notification (Comunicazione di Inizio Lavori:

C.I.L.).150 In the first two cases the notice is accompanied by a technical report, issued by a

qualified technician and certifying the compliance of the construction with the planning and

technical regulations. Design documents accompany the report (Comunicazione di Inizio

Lavori Asseverata: C.I.L.A.).151

The Act 106 of 12 July 2011152 simplified the regime for restoration/conservation of private

works complying with detailed planning/ zoning provisions, by introducing certified

commencement signaling (Segnalazione Certificata di Inizio Attività: S.C.I.A.). The works

may commence upon submission, similar to C.I.L./C.I.L.A. The Act also introduced silent

assent to the building permit procedure, except in cases of environmental, landscaping or

cultural restrictions.

Renovations and new buildings that are compliant with detailed planning provisions are

subject to a building notice (Denuncia di Inizio Attività: D.I.A.), as an alternative to the

building permit procedure.153 Deviations from the building permit, not modifying the use/

category/ contour of the building, may also be implemented using D.I.A. The building notice

is due at least thirty days prior to commencement, accompanied by a detailed report,

signed by a qualified designer and design, certifying compliance of the works with the

planning and technical regulations.

Excluding the exempt and notified works, the rest are subject to a building permit (permesso

di costruire). Under the procedure, S.U.E. verifies the application, acquires agreements from

other authorities and issues a draft decision within sixty days after the submission of the

application. The responsible officer may hold a conference with the authorities which have

148 (n 145) art 5(R).

149 (n 145) art 6(L)1.

150 (n 145) art 6(L)2.

151 (n 145) art 6(L)4.

152 106 GU art 5. 153 (n 145) ch III.

of 88 Pages

not issued positive agreements. The procedure is then completed thirty days later. The time

periods are doubled in municipalities with more than 100,000 inhabitants, as well as for

complex projects.154

The T.U.E. empowers the regions to extend the list of construction works exempt from

permiting or subject to building notice.155

Authorisation for commencement of work in seismic zones is a condition precedent for

construction, by virtue of T.U.E. Part II Chapter IV Section II. The authorisation is issued

within 60 days.156 Only preliminary works may be executed after the building permit is

issued, if seismic authorisation is pending.

The present seismic classification defines zones 1÷4 with decreasing risk.157 The Lazio

Regional Regulation introduced electronic submission of the application for authorization.

The competent Commission verifies:

15% of the designs in seismic zones 1, 2A and 2B;

5% in zones 3A and 3B;

100% of the designs for works with public financing.

When design is not verified, the Regional Infrastructure Directorate issues a certificate of

deposit, which has the value of seismic authorization (after 15th of the month following the

application).158

The builder must notify the PSC before commencement of construction of reinforced

concrete and steel structures.159

F.2. DESIGN APPROVAL

The regional regulations specify the required contents of the design to be appended to both a

notice or a permit applications,160 or they are listed in the downloadable templates:161

Extract of the General Regulation Plan (scale 1:5000-1:10000);

Technical report;162

154 (n 145) art 20.

155 (n 145) art 6(L)6 & 10(L)2. 156 (n 145) art 94(L).

157 Ministers’ Council President’s Order 3274/2003 (2003) 105 GU.

158 Regional Regulation 2/2012 (2012) 6 BUR supp 9.

159 (n 145) art 65(R).

160 Regional Council Regulation 98/2012,(2012) 10 BUR Umbria, supp ordinario n2, app A.

161 Template for Rome ‘Domanda di permesso di costruire’, Roma capitale excl. the last two bullets,

<http://www.urbanistica.comune.roma.it/pdc-modulistica.html>accessed 27 August 2014.

of 88 Pages

Extract of the cadaster map (scale 1:1000-1:2000);

General site layout (scale 1:500-1:1000);

Site layout with sections (scale 1:200-1:500);

Architectural design, including plans, elevations, sections (scale 1:100-1:200) and

details (scale 1:10-1:20);

Design of technological equipment, when required pursuant to D.M. 37/08,163

containing at least schemes/plans (scale 1:100-1:200) and a technical report;

Accessibility/ visibility drawings (scale 1:50-1:100).

Seismic Authorisation

The minimum content of the design is determined by the relevant technical department of the

region. In all cases two copies of floor plans, sections, elevations and structural details,

accompanied by a technical report with calculations, must be presented to the PSC, which

transfers the design for verification to the competent regional technical office.164

Reinforced concrete and steel structures commencement notification

The design appended to the notification must be in three copies and contain calculations,

structural drawings and a report, signed by the designer and project director, characterising

the materials to be implemented. The design changes must also be notified before execution.

Fire Safety Submission

DPR 151/2011165 classifies the construction works that are subject to fire prevention control

into three categories. Designs for works with higher complexity (Categories B and C) must

be submitted for verification to PSC, or directly to the fire authority, which issues a CA with

the fire prevention criteria within sixty days. Appendix I of the Ministerial Decree of 7

August 2012 specifies the contents of the design to be submitted in one hard copy166 :

Technical report;

Drawings:

o Site layout (1:2000-1:200);

o Floor plans (1:50-1:200), including fire safety;

o Sections.

162 Additionally specific reports are required: Sustainable architecture and biobuilding, Production cycle,

Cultural heritage, Zoning restrictions .

163 Decree of 22 January 2008: Services (2008)61 GU.

164 (n 145) art 93(R).

165 (2011)221 GU.

166 (2012)201 GU art 3.

of 88 Pages

A declaration, accompanied by the design in the same scope, is submitted for category A.167

G. Comparison

Risk-based procedures

Construction works are categorised considering the risk in case of failure. The criteria often

include public access, use and height.

Table 7. Permit procedures

Procedures/State Bulgaria England France Germany

BbgBO Italy

Umbria

Exempt

Building notice

Simplified permit

Building permit

Regularisation

Procedures for low/medium-risk projects (colours as above)

Repairs

Greenhouses <150 m2

Agricultural

Vilas<35 m2, H<4 m

Dwelling<40m2, H<7 m*

Dwelling>40m2,H<7 m*

Residential H<15 m*

Hotel, H<7m

*Complies with DZP, available infrastructure

It can be seen that the low-risk projects are exempt from design supervision and in some

cases from permitting. With the exception of Bulgaria, the medium-risk projects for

individual houses are only notified. The regime for medium-risk projects, accessed by more

167 (n 166) art 4.

of 88 Pages

people, varies. Regularisation procedures for unauthorised works are available in England

and Italy.

In Bulgaria a simplified permit procedure without design approval is used only for low-risk

projects and building permit with design approval is used for the rest.

Design approval

Design approval is not applicable for low-risk buildings.

The designer is usually solely responsible for the verification of compliance of individual

houses, where a building notice procedure is available.

For higher-risk projects public authorities or authorised private controllers assess the

compliance of the design with the required minimum scope and contents, planning/zoning,

aesthetic and technical requirements. Only in Bulgaria aesthetic demands are not checked.

Commencement time

Construction may commence in England on developer’s own risk upon submission of the

application to the LA.

In Bulgaria preliminary works (site preparation) may be executed if the building permit is

issued after approval of basic design. Technical/detailed design submissions have to be

proceeded for approval before implementation.

In Italy the building permit also enables early commencement of preliminary works. The

main works however may only start after the relevant authorisations, issued by other

authorities on the grounds of the verification of other design parts.

In Germany and France commencement may start after the expiry of the relevant permitting

period, including other authorisations/approvals.

Validity

The validity of the permitted design varies between 2÷6 years and this may ordinarily be

extended.

Conclusion: Benchmarking against other European Countries illustrates that in Bulgaria the

procedures for low/medium-risk projects with less visitors obviously need simplification:

Category V and VI projects may be notified without design approval and permitting, in

accordance with good European practice.

of 88 Pages

CHAPTER 5 Case study

A. Introduction

Twenty six percent of the building permits issued in Sofia for the period September 2013-

August 2014 were for low-risk projects, permitted without design approval (Cat.VI). Half of

them were for medium-risk projects (22% Cat.IV and 28% Cat.V).

Figure 8. Building permits Sofia September 2013-August 2014

Source: Municipality Register

I have measured the performance of the five regimes for two medium-risk real projects: a

dwelling (Cat. V) and a medical centre (Cat. IV). Categories IV&V have the most potential

for reducing the regulatory burden, preserving the value of building control. The primary

benefits would be for SMEs and social groups needing affordable housing. Cutting Red Tape

in Cat. IV&V could reduce public spending in fifty percent of the cases. Moreover,

excluding Category VI, two thirds of the approved designs are for medium-risk projects.

The case study identifies the parameters to be used for the comparison of the regimes in

Chapter 6.

45 48

448

506636

611 I

II

III

IV

V

VI

of 88 Pages

B. Case study 1: a dwelling (SDA Cat.V)

I have compared the documentation and procedures for a 2-storey private house, 140 m2

footprint (including 40 m2 terraces), 200 m2 total built up area, 7 m high. The house is with

reinforced concrete main structure and wooden roof structure. The heating is by a boiler and

a 32 kW fire place. The other services include plumbing, electricity and drainage. The

detailed lists of design documents are presented in Appendix 4.

I have assumed that the owner prefers to go directly to the Municipality in Bulgaria, thus

using an expert council’s CA within the approval procedure168 (Chapter 4, B.2.2).

I have assumed that the Building Notice procedure may be used in England (Ch. 4, C.2.1)

and the PCMI is applicable in France (Ch. 4, D.2).

I have assumed that the Building Notice procedure may be used in Germany (the building

conforms to a valid Bebauungsplan, with available infrastructure).

In Italy I have assumed that the building is in Umbria, and that it complies with the detailed

planning requirements. The S.C.I.A. may therefore be used.169 Commencement will be

possible upon submission of the architectural and electrical design, but not before the

separate seismic procedure. Only a deposit of documentation is required for 2-storey

buildings with gross volume less than 500m3, classified as works with minor relevance for

168 Prefered by73% for Category V in Sofia.

169 LR 1/2004 (2004) 8 BU app 1, amended LR12/2013 29 BU app1, art 20 para 1 a).

of 88 Pages

the public seismic safety.170 The house is exempt from fire prevention control.165 The

electrical design must be submitted, since the consumption is more than 6 kW.171

Table 8. Design approval burden for a dwelling

State/

Criteria

C1

Design Docs

C2

Procedures

C3

Time (days)

Bulgaria 50 2 51

England 3 1 1

France 11 1 60

Germany 9 1 30

Italy 33 2 1

The inspection of the data confirms the Red Tape Zones, identified in Chapter 2:

Red Tape Zone A: The DSL is not risk-based:

In Bulgaria the building control regime requires the same building permit for a 7 m high one-

family dwelling and a skyscraper. In England, Germany and Italy a building notice

procedure may be used for a similar house. In France the permit procedure for an individual

house takes less time and documents, compared to that for a public building.

Red Tape Zone B: The minimum scope and contents of the design are obviously excessive:

In Bulgaria nine design parts, including minimum fifty design documents, are submitted. On

the other hand, aesthetic requirements are not controlled. In France and England no design is

required for the dwelling itself: the authorities control only its incorporation into the building

environment. In Germany and Italy both architectural and structural design are registered. In

Italy electrical design is also registered, if not verified by a licensed professional.

Conclusion: The above assessment evidences the excessive number of design documents

required to be submitted for approval of a house in Bulgaria. Good practice is seen to be a

building notice regime, including online submission of a limited number of design

documents, related to the incorporation of the house into the environment. The designer

should be solely responsible for the compliance of the design with the planning and technical

requirements.

170 LR 5/2010, 6 BU supp 2 art 7 para 3 abis)10&11, simplified by LR 8/2011, list in DGR 167/2012, 10 BU supp 3).

171 (n 163) art 5 para 2 a).

of 88 Pages

C. Case study 2: a medical centre (SDA Cat.IV)

The two-storey 6 m high medical centre is located in a small English village. It has a 660 m2

footprint. It has obtained planning permission and a full plans application procedure has been

carried out, including consultations with the Fire Officers. Construction commenced on the

day after the Building Regulations Submission, that included most of the design documents,

listed in Appendix 5. The applicant declared that all electrical works will be undertaken by a

member of a Part P CP Scheme. After five weeks The LA issued a conditional approval,

requesting the rest of the listed documents (structural and thermal calculations and details).

The building has a steel frame, wooden truss roof structure and masonry walls. The systems

include electricity, plumbing, ventilation, water heating by a pressurised boiler, space

heating by gas fired condensing boiler to under floor pipe loops and a lift.

The specialist design documents have been prepared by the suppliers or the engineering

company: structural drawings and calculations for the roof, pre-cast concrete stairs, beams,

steel structure. The M&E design is to be developed during the construction phase.

In Bulgaria the regime is the same as for the above dwelling, but I have assumed that in this

case the owner’s preference is to use a consultant for the CA, to support him in the design

approval and permitting process.172

172 Preferred by 51% for Category IV in Sofia.

of 88 Pages

The building permit procedure in France takes a longer time than the procedure for an

individual house and encompasses public access authorisation, adding additional design

documents (accessibility and safety files).

In Germany the permit procedure requires the same documents as for the building notice, but

it takes more time.

A building permit procedure shall also be used In Italy. Additionally seismic authorisation

and fire safety verification173 must be available before commencement. The electrical, week

current and HVAC design parts are not required, if these are approved by licensed

professionals.174

Table 9. Design approval burden for a medical centre

State C4

Design Docs

C5

Procedures

C6

Time (days)

Bulgaria 86 3 42

England 41 1 1

France 18 1 153

Germany 10 1 76

Italy 39 3 80

The inspection of the data confirms the red tape zones, identified in Chapter 2:

Red Tape Zone A: The DSL is not risk-based:

In Bulgaria the building control regime is the same for the private house (Category V) and

the medical centre with public access (Category IV). The same design documents are

required for a higher category medical centre. In the comparison countries, however, there is

a higher level of building control for the medical centre than for the private house.

Red Tape Zone B: The minimum scope and contents of the design are obviously excessive:

Twelve design parts, including a minimum of eighty six design documents, are submitted for

a medical centre in Bulgaria. In England architectural, structural, electrical and drainage

design are required to be submitted and the required service information is about one third of

that required in Bulgaria for the relevant parts. In Bulgaria the requirement is for the

173 The building is Category B pursuant to (n 165).

174 (n 145) art 111(R) Simplification measures for installations .

of 88 Pages

designer to include enough details to enable the approved design to be built. In England one

third of the initially submitted documents are developed by the specialist suppliers/

contractors. Further M&E documents are then to be presented by the specialists during

construction as well.

Survey, architecture and fire safety parts are submitted in France, while structural

compliance is certified by teh private technical controller and thermal regulations

compliance is stated by teh applicant.

Survey, architectural design, and structural and fire safety compliance proofs are submitted

in Germany. A site infrastructure drawing is required as well.

Survey, landscaping, architecture, structure and fire safety are required in Italy. The new

simplification allows the applicant either to submit schematic design for parts electrical,

plumbing, drainage and HVAC, or to appoint licensed private controllers and present

conformity declarations.145

Conclusion: The values evidence that an excessive number of design documents are

required to be submitted for approval in Bulgaria for a medical centre. Good practice

adopted elsewhere in Europe is for the details and the installations to be designed by

specialists during construction and to be verified only by the registered consultant. The time

for approval in Bulgaria is less than the time needed in France, Germany and Italy, but there

is no silent approval and therefore the authorities can cause considerable additional delay.

of 88 Pages

CHAPTER 6 Ranking bureaucracy in design approval

I have used Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) to rank the level of bureaucracy in design

approval and to develop a Linear Additive Multi-Criteria Model (LAMCM), following the

eight steps applied in the DCLG Guide.175

Step 1: Establishing the decision context

The aim of the study is presented in Chapter 1A: to compare the building control regimes

and find out whether the Bulgarian procedures are more bureaucratic and if so, how to

simplify them. The objective of building control and the general characteristics of the

European regimes are indicated in Chapter 1B. It is in the public interest to ensure that

construction works are safely and properly designed, but oversight control cannot be 100%.

Both private and public resources have to be spent efficiently to achieve maximum results

with minimum efforts. The Red Tape negative effect on the economy is being evaluated at

European level. Europe 2020 Strategy is targeting simplification of the administrative

burden, as presented in Chapter 3. The LAMCM is intended to contribute to the formulation

of recommendations from the compared good practices, taking into account the regime’s

environment in Bulgaria.

Step 2: Identifying options

The five regimes are the compared options.

Step 3: Identifying criteria

Four Red Tape Zones are presented in Chapter 2. Objective criteria have been established

and the values for each regime are defined in Chapter 4. The performance of the regimes is

measured separately for the private and public access medium-risk buildings, studied in

Chapter 5.

The provisional set of criteria has been assessed against a range of qualities:

Completeness: The exempt works usually include repairs and minor works, not

affecting public safety. The works controlled under special regimes are not

compared. The two case studies investigated in Chapter 5 are for medium-risk

projects, but they represent the approach of the legislators to the control of private

individual houses and projects with public access. The regime for the medical centre

represents the highest level of control in all compared states.

175 (n 10) chs 4&5.

of 88 Pages

Redundancy: The criteria which have the same values for all projects are used once.

Operationality: Each regime can be objectively judged against each criterion.

Mutual independence of criteria: each value is derived from separate provisions.

Trade-offs between different criteria are acceptable: the PSC results in one

procedure, but takes longer time for agreements with other authorities.176

Step 4: Performance Matrix and Step 5: Weighting

The values for criteria C1÷C7 are derived from Chapter 5.

I have assigned ‘1’ for rejection and ‘0’ for approval, for C8.

Design changes, not amending the planning/zoning provisions and complying with the

technical requirements are notified in England177 and Italy.178 Revised design is not

submitted in France, since it is not amending the initial application. Revised design is

controlled by the authorities in Bulgaria and Germany. The delay and disruption in days

represents the value for C9.

Table 10. Performance matrix

Criteria

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9

Dwelling Medical centre Both

Regimes

Des

ign

docs

[no]

Pro

cedure

s

[no]

Tim

e

[day

s]

Des

ign

docs

[no]

Pro

cedure

s [n

o]

Tim

e

[day

s]

Har

d

copie

s [n

o]

Silen

t

reje

ctio

n

/appro

val

Susp

ensi

on

[day

s]

Bulgaria 50 2 51 86 3 42 3 1 51

England 3 1 1 41 1 1 0 0 0

France 11 1 60 18 1 153 4 0 0

Germany 9 1 30 10 1 76 3 0 30

Italy 33 2 1 39 3 80 0 0 0

Weight % 25 3 10 25 3 10 5 10 9

The answer to the main question of this study is clear from the direct inspection of the

Performance matrix: the burden in Bulgaria is obviously higher than in the compared states.

176 Professionals in Italy do not prefer the one-stop shop, because of the incurred delay.

177 Ch 4 C3.4

178 Umbria LR1/2004 art 20 SCIA.

of 88 Pages

Step 6: Ranking

The maximum value for each criterion (C) is highlighted in Table 10. The other values are

scaled relatively to the highest number and multiplied by the weight:

ScoreCnx = Cnx:Cnmax x WCn

I have ranked the burden of each regime, summing the calculated scores:

Overall Scorex = Ʃ(ScoreC1x÷ScoreC9x)

Table 11. Overall design approval burden

Regimes/

Scores C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9

Overall

Score

Bulgaria 25,0 3,0 8,5 25,0 3,0 2,7 3,8 10,0 9,0 90

England 1,5 1,5 0,2 11,9 1,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 16

France 5,5 1,5 10,0 5,2 1,0 10,0 5,0 0,0 0,0 38

Germany 4,5 1,5 5,0 2,9 1,0 5,0 3,8 0,0 5,3 29

Italy 16,5 3,0 0,2 11,3 3,0 5,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 39

The analysis shows that overall administrative burden in Bulgaria is six times greater than

that in England, and more than doubled related to the other compared regimes.

Table 12. Ranking

Admin.

burden

rank

Design docs

[no]

Time

[days]

Overall score

[0÷100]

Table 10 (C1+C4) Table 10 (C3+C6+C9) Table 11

50% Weight 29% Weight 100%

I Bulgaria 136 France 213 Bulgaria 90

II Italy 72 Bulgaria 144 Italy 39

III England 44 Germany 136 France 38

IV France 29 Italy 81 Germany 29

V Germany 19 England 2 England 16

Step 7: Examine the results

England has the least burden, achieving higher compliance: more design parts are verified

for public projects, compared to France, Germany and Italy.

of 88 Pages

Step 8: Sensitivity analysis

The purpose of the study is to assess whether Bulgaria ranks first for the overall design

approval burden. The performance is assessed using equal weights for Categories IV&V,

since they have almost equal shares in the building permits (Table 8: Cat.V has 28% and

Cat.IV 22%).

I have also introduced proportionally higher weights for the medical centre, representing the

total share of Cat.I,II,III&IV (46%), which have the same building permit procedures in the

compared states:

New W1÷3= W1÷3 x 2 x 28:74

New W4÷6= W4÷6 x 2 x 46:74

Bulgaria scores 90 out of 100 in the first model and 89 out of 100 in the second model. The

ranking is the same. The first model may be considered “requisite”179 and therefore used

further.

Conclusion: The ranking evidences that the design approval regime in Bulgaria is more

bureaucratic than the regimes in the compared European states. The excessive number of

design documents, the lack of building notice procedure and absence of silent approval are

the main problems.

179 L.d. Phillips, (1984) ‘A theory of requisite decision models’, Acta Psychologica, 56, 29-48 as cited in (n 10).

of 88 Pages

CHAPTER 7 Waste reduction

“Following best practices should be treated with care… minor differences in regime design

may result to major differences in regime impacts, both intended and unintended.” … “not only regime design influences the regime impacts, the regime’s environment has a major impact as well.”180

A five-step thought process has been implemented, using lean thinking techniques.181

Figure 9. Lean thinking process

The proposed simplification is not mechanically copied from the compared regimes. The

improvement measures take into account SDA RIA11 and the opinion of the professionals

and decision-makers.182

The following cycles have been performed, using the model from Chapter 6:

Cycle 1: Cutting Red Tape Zone A: The private house could be subject to a building notice

procedure. The seven proposed compulsory design documents are listed in Appendix 6.

Commencement could be possible 21 days after the submission.

If this proposed change is applied for all Category V projects, it would benefit SME’s and

people building dwellings so reducing economic losses.

180 (n 8) 178…180.

181Lean Enterprise Institute web site, <www.lean.org/WhatsLean/Principles.cfm> accessed 20 July 2014

182 On the grounds of (n 25), (n 66) and answers to the Questionnaire for Bulgaria.

Identify value

Identify waste

Create flow

Establish pull

Seek perfection

http://www.lean.org/WhatsLean/Principles.cfm

of 88 Pages

Cycle 2: Cutting Red Tape Zone B: The design documents for the medical centre are

reduced from 86 (Appendix 5) to 22 (Appendix 7). The most important documents from the

twelve design parts may be represented in four concise parts: geodesy, architecture,

structural and technology/installations.

Figure 10. Reducing design parts for permitting

Ener

gy E

ffic

iency

Lan

dsc

apin

g

Arc

hitec

ture

Fir

e S

afet

y

Hea

lth &

Saf

ety

Pla

n

Str

uct

ure

Was

te M

anag

emen

t

Pla

n

Hea

ting,

Ven

tila

tion

& A

ir C

onditio

nin

g

Tec

hnolo

gy

Plu

mbin

g &

Sew

age

Ele

ctri

cal

Geo

des

y

EE L A FS HSP S WP HVC T P&S EL G

A S T G

Cycle 3: Cutting Red Tape Zone C: Overlapping design approval is removed from the

procedures: the building permit is issued on the grounds of the consultant’s CA. Silent

approval is introduced into the Performance matrix.

The interviewed professionals and decision makers consider that simplification requires not

only regulatory changes, but also improvement of the quality of the consultants’ CA.

Presently the authorities control only the planning/zoning compliance in the CA reports. The

registered consultants complain of low remuneration and uneven competition. In order to

survive, they decrease the expert input, leading to formal approach to the CA, resulting in

low credibility. The professional association encompasses a small part of the registered

consultants and cannot control the CA quality.

The overlapping authority approvals cannot however be eliminated if the full delegation of

building control functions decreases its value. The professional bodies must guarantee the

quality assurance of the design and CA, prepared by their members, using positive and

negative control measures. The self-regulation may include quality systems, compulsory

professional development, assessment procedures based on strict criteria, regular audits

under DNCC supervision, public awards promoting the best CA reports, disciplinary

measures for the worst reports, planned quality checks during the implementation of the

lowest-price services.

of 88 Pages

“Private or public insurers may operate to control risks by imposing conditions on the

supply of insurance cover and by using economic incentives, such as deductibles, to

encourage proper risk-reducing behaviour.”183

The professional liability insurance system must be improved to provide adequate

compensation to the developer in case of damages due to the consultant’s professional

negligence. Designers and registered consultants who systematically do not exercise their

services with reasonable skill and care must be sanctioned not only by DNCC, but also pay

higher insurance premiums.

The improvement of service quality should minimise design mistakes and latent defects,

achieving higher building control value with less administrative burden. The developers

would recognise the importance of the CA, so investing a higher payment as a warranty for

less errors and omissions. The higher remuneration would strengthen the capacity of the

consultants and enable them to use better experts, more efficient software, invest in further

training, which would lead to further improvement of the services. The factors influencing

such constant quality improvement and reputation building are presented on Figure 11.

Figure 11. Registered consultants’ capacity building

Cycle 4: Cutting Red Tape Zone D: The registered consultant shall be responsible for the

compliance of the essential changes during construction. The consultant shall register the

revised design in the initial submission scope, accompanied by a CA report.

183 Baldwin, Risk regulation, management and compliance (LSEPS 2000) 9.

DNCC sanctions

Professional bodies' control

Risk-based insurance

Public recognition

Higher turnover

of 88 Pages

Cycle 5: Reducing the waste: E-submission is introduced in the model. The regulatory

framework is available. Pilot municipalities may launch online submission through their

portals, or even via e-mail.

Table 13 Lean cycles in the Performance matrix

Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9

Dwelling Medical centre Both D

esig

n d

ocs

[no]

Pro

cedure

s [n

o]

Tim

e [d

ays]

Des

ign d

ocs

[no]

Pro

cedure

s [n

o]

Tim

e [d

ays]

Har

d c

opie

s [n

o]

Silen

t re

ject

ion

/appro

val

Susp

ensi

on f

or

chan

ges

[day

s]

Present 50 2 51 86 3 42 3 1 51

Cycle 1 7 1 21 86 3 42 3 1 51

Cycle 2 7 1 21 22 3 42 3 1 51

Cycle 3 7 1 21 22 2 28 3 0 51

Cycle 4 7 1 21 22 2 28 3 0 0

Cycle 5 7 1 21 22 2 28 0 0 0

Weight % 25 3 10 25 3 10 5 10 9

Table 14. Cutting the Red tape

Scores

Bulgaria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9

Overall

Score

Present 25,0 3,0 8,5 25,0 3,0 2,7 3,8 10,0 9,0 90

Cycle 1 5,3 1,5 3,5 25,0 3,0 2,7 3,8 10,0 9,0 64

Cycle 2 5,3 1,5 3,5 13,4 3,0 2,7 3,8 10,0 9,0 52

Cycle 3 5,3 1,5 3,5 13,4 2,0 1,8 3,8 0,0 9,0 40

Cycle 4 5,3 1,5 3,5 13,4 2,0 1,8 3,8 0,0 0,0 31

Cycle 5 5,3 1,5 3,5 13,4 2,0 1,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 28

of 88 Pages

The five lean cycles lead to improved score, ranking Bulgaria with the most efficient

regimes.

Figure 12. Improving Bulgaria’s overall score

Conclusion: Bulgaria has opportunity to catch up with the best by simplifying SDA regimes.

The building control value has to be specified not only from the standpoint of the developer,

but also from the standpoint of the public. In order to achieve good compliance, in addition

to regulatory changes, insurance mechanisms and professional bodies’ oversight must be

developed.

0

20

40

60

80

100

BGITFRDE

EN

Present score

Cycle 1 score

Cycle 2 score

Cycle 3 score

Cycle 4 score

Cycle 5 score

of 88 Pages

CHAPTER 8 Conclusions

Four Red Tape Zones were identified in Chapter 2. Simplification was forecasted in Chapter

3, in line with Bulgaria’s commitments to EU Strategy 2020. The comparison of the five

European regimes in Chapter 4 confirmed the excessive design supervision burden in

Bulgaria, especially for medium-risk projects. The case study in Chapter 5 measured the

performance of the compared regimes for a house and a medium-risk medical centre. The

LAMCM developed in Chapter 6 demonstrated that the Bulgarian regime is the most

bureaucratic from the compared regimes. The Lean Cycles in Chapter 7 illustrated how

Bulgaria could rank with the best.

Recommendations

1. Building notice procedure to substitute the building permit for categories V and VI.

The designer to certify the CA.

2. The design submission to include only architectural, structural and geodesy design

plus an explanatory note for services, accompanied by the registered consultant’s CA

Report.

3. Full delegation of the design verification to the private registered consultants,

eliminating the overlapping approvals. The present regime may be preserved for the

highest risk Category I.

4. The consultant to be responsible for changes during construction, registering the

revised design with a CA report.

5. Electronic submission of design and electronic registration of the as built drawings in

the same scope to be organized via the web sites of the relevant municipalities.

6. Every registered consultant must be a member of the relevant professional

association and comply with its code of conduct. The association must focus on the

quality of the CA services. Obligatory training, assessment procedures, audits under

DNCC supervision, combined with positive and negative incentives, would ensure

the quality management of the building control services.

7. The insurance mechanisms must further underpin the private building control.

Smarter regulation would bring growth, achieving compliance at least cost.

of 88 Pages

APPENDICES

of 88 Pages

App 1 Questionnaire for England, France, Germany and Italy

1 What is the minimum scope of design to be submitted for approval before a building permit can be issued and construction started?

2 What is the time period needed for approval?

3 Who is checking the design?

4 What is the minimum scope of checking?

5 What is the % from the scope of technical design documents (including E&M) to be obligatorily checked before or after building permit, if applicable?

6 Is electronic submission possible?

7 Who issues the building permit?

8 What is the term for issuance of a building permit after design approval?

9 Is there a “silent consent” or a “silent rejection” procedure?

10 Is there a period after the building permit is issued before it can enter in force?

11 Which design changes are considered essential, so that a revised design has to

be additionally approved during construction?

12 May the revised design be approved in case of changes during implementation or the construction has to be suspended in order to complete the procedures?

13 What is the minimum scope of the as built design information, which has to be

submitted to the municipality or third party before permit for occupation is issued?

14 Who is authorized to suspend construction in case the minimum required

design is not approved or substantial deviations are evidenced on site?

15 What are the possible sanctions in case of substantial design changes not approved before implementation?

16 Who is responsible for the compliance of the construction with the approved

design?

of 88 Pages

App 2 Questionnaire for Bulgaria

1 What does the design approving authority control?

2 Why the statement from the fire authority is mandatory for Categories I÷III, having in mind that the registered consultant responsible for the design CA must have a fire safety expert in his team?

3 Who is checking the design?

4 Do you think that CA criteria are necessary to improve the quality of the building control?

5 What do you think about electronic submission of design for approval?

6 What measures would you propose for the improvement of the design CA made by registered consultants? Please select one or more from the following options:

a. Public awards for the best CA every 3 months;

b. Minimum prices for CA services;

c. Payment for the CA services to DNCC, which appoints a registered consultant for the project, using transparent criteria (professional experience);

d. Higher sanctions;

e. Higher professional qualification requirements, linked with the category of the construction works, continuous training system and exams;

f. Improvement of the professional indemnity insurance system;

g. More active involvement of the professional bodies for quality control.

7 What are the problems which result in poor quality of the CA? Please select one or more from the following options:

a. Dependence on the designer;

b. Dependence on the builder;

c. Time pressure;

d. Low remuneration, which does not enable development and involvement of enough qualified experts;

e. Poor design quality;

f. Fear of losing clients; g. Desire for fast profit.

8 Do you consider that the design for the services has to be proceeded for approval?

9 Do you think that the overall scope of the technical design proceeded for a building permit has to be reduced?

10 Do you think that a “silent consent” instead of “silent rejection” procedure has to be implemented for design approval?

11 Do you think that the registered consultant may handle the procedure for approval of the compliant essential deviations, without submission of the revised design to the approving authority?

12 According to you, what is the % of the lawfully proceeded compliant essential deviations?

13 Do you consider that in case of design changes of the foundations, due to unforeseeable conditions, the construction has to be suspended waiting the essential deviation approval procedure?

14 What do you think about the following options:

a. The consultant registers the revised design prepared by the designer and checked by the technical controller in the Order Book;

b. The consultant submits the revised design to the approving authority for information and immediately registers it in the Order Book (as in a);

c. The scope of the compliant essential deviations to be restricted to SDA Art.154 (2) 6 and 8?

of 88 Pages

App 3 Scope and contents of technical design for a building

Note: This is a simplified extract of the minimum requirements pursuant to Regulation 4184.

Other parts like technology, earth bed, conservation of cultural heritage, traffic safety, etc. maybe also required depending on the specificity of the project.

I. Part architecture185:

1. Drawings developed to execute construction:

a. Site layout, based on a cadastre map or a detailed zoning plan, scale 1:500 or 1:1000;

b. Floor and roof layouts, elevations and sections scale 1:50 or 1:100;

2. Explanatory note;

3. Calculations proving compliance with technical requirements.

II. Part structure186:

1. Drawings:

a. Foundation, floor and roof layouts scale 1:50 or 1:100;

b. Reinforcement plans;

c. Assembly plans for prefabricated structures and curtain walls;

d. Specifications of materials.


3. Static and dynamic calculations for all structural elements.

III. Part electrical187 (including electrical installations and appliances and connection to

grid)

1. Drawings:

a. Floor layouts with cable routes, switchboards, equipment and appliances scale

1:50 or 1:100;

b. Diagrams;

c. Assembly plans and assembly details;

d. Control and automation diagrams.


3. Calculations.

IV. Part plumbing and drainage (separate sections for connection to utilities and

internal installations)188:

1. Drawings:

a. Floor layouts / sections with cold and hot water piping and drainage with

dimensions, calculation data and specification of materials, appliances, equipment scale 1:50 or 1:100;

b. Axonometric schemes for plumbing and drainage;

c. Unique element details and crossings with other installations.

184 (n 24).

185 (n 24) Ch 8 s II.

186 (n 24) Ch 9 s II.

187 (n 24) Ch 11 s I.

188 (n 24) Ch 12 s I.

of 88 Pages


3. Calculations.

V. Part HVAC189

1. Drawings:

a. General layout with wind data, existing heating network, exhaust air discharge points, etc.;

b. For heating station and hot water installation: layout, sections with all fittings,

piping, appliances and equipment scale 1:50 or 1:100;

c. For heating: floor layouts / sections with all fittings, piping, appliances and

equipment scale 1:50 or 1:100;

d. For ventilation and air conditioning: floor layouts / sections with all fittings, piping, appliances and equipment scale 1:50 or 1:100;

e. Layout and diagram for energy source;

f. Scheme for location of the chimney and the aerodynamic shadows of

buildings;

g. Layouts, sections and diagrams of dust catching or compressed air installations;

h. Terms of reference and diagram for control and automation, developed with part electrical and C&I.


3. Calculations.

VI. Part energy efficiency190(added in 2009191)

1. Drawings: architectural-structural details;


3. Calculations.

VII. Part landscaping192

1. Drawings:

a. Site layout

b. Sections

c. Design of the alleys with specified paving

d. Dendrology design


3. Bill of quantities for planting and other works.

189 (n 24) Ch 13 s I.

190 (n 24) Ch 14. 191 The scope and contents are specified in Regulation 7 for energy efficiency, heat preservation and energy

saving in buildings (Наредба № 7 за енергийна ефективност, топлосъхранение и икономия на енергия в

сгради) MRDPW (2005) 5 SG, amended (2009) 85 & 92 SG, (2010) 2 SG, (2013) 80 & 93 SG. The national

energy efficiency requirements are determined following Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No

244/2012 of 16 January 2012 supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the

Council on the energy performance of buildings by establishing a comparative methodology framework for

calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building

elements [2012] OJ L81/18.

192 (n 24) Ch 15 s II.

of 88 Pages

VIII. Part geodesy193

1. Drawings:

a. Site layout;

b. Schemes of the geodesy monitoring and control networks;

c. Tracing plans;

d. Vertical planning layout and sections;

e. Earth masses balance;


3. Bill of quantities for excavation and other works.

IX. Part fire safety194

1. Drawings195:

a. Drawings presenting passive measures, specification of construction products

with fire safety parameters;

b. Fire brigade roads, staircases for fire safety use;

c. Evacuation plans;

4. Explanatory note, including active and passive fire safety measures.

X. Health and Safety Plan196

Note: Obligatory for construction works with planned duration more than 30 days with more than 20 workers or more than 500 man days197

1. Organisation Plan;

2. Construction site layout plan;

3. Complex Schedule for sequence of works;

4. Fire safety, emergency and evacuation plans for personnel on site;

5. Measures and requirements for provision of safety and health during construction, including sites with specific risks;

6. List of installations, machines and plant to be controlled;

193 (n 24) Ch 16 s II.

194 (n 24) Art.3 (1) 5: the scope and contents are specified pursuant to Art.4 (1) in Appendix 3 Regulation №

Iз-1971 for construction–technical rules and norms for fire safety (Наредба № Iз-1971 за строително-

технически правила и норми за осигуряване на безопасност при пожар ) Ministry of Interior & MRDPW

(2009) 96 SG, amended and extended (2013) 75 SG, harmonized with Eurocodes and Council Directive

89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of

the Member States relating to construction products [1989] OJ L40/12.

195 Layouts with fire extinguishing, fire alarm, smoke/heat discharge systems, fresh air system and other active

measures are included in the relevant design parts (eg electrical, HVAC, plumbing). 196 In compliance with § 1(1)24 when other normative acts raise additional requirements to the scope of the

investment designs, they shall be applied simultaneously with Regulation 4. Scope and contents defined by Art

10 Regulation 2 for minimum requirements for healthy and safe labour conditions during the execution of

construction works (Наредба № 2 за минималните изисквания за здравословни и безопасни условия на

труд при извършване на строителни и монтажни работи ) Ministry of labour and social policy (2004) 37

SG, amended (2004) 98 SG, (2006) 102 SG.

Bulgarian health and safety legislation has been harmonized in 2004 with the following EC Directives:

Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of meas ures to encourage

improvements in the safety and health of workers at work [1989] OJ L183/1;

Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health

requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth indiv idual Directive within the

meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) [1992] OJ L245/6.

197 Regulation 2 Art 12 (1) (n 196).

of 88 Pages

7. List of the responsible staff (name, position, Employer) for control and coordination of the plans of different subcontractors;

8. Scheme of temporary traffic organization and safety on transport and evacuation roads and crossings on the site and access;

9. Scheme of the workplaces on the site where more than two subcontractors are envisaged to work simultaneously;

10. Scheme of the workplaces on the site where specific risks are involved;

11. Schemes for installation of lifting equipment and scaffolding

12. Scheme for storage of construction products and equipment, temporary

workshops and waste containers

13. Scheme for layout of temporary welfare-accommodation buildings;

14. Scheme for temporary supply with electricity, water, heating, sewerage, etc.;

15. Scheme and schedule for work under artificial lighting on the site and on the workplaces;

16. Scheme and type of emergency signals for disaster, fire, etc with defined first aid places.

XI. Waste Management Plan198

Note: Obligatory for new buildings >300 sq m, renovation/ change of use >500 sq m, demolition of buildings >100 sq m total built up area 199

Data about the project, forecast for the generated construction waste and their reuse, waste management measures.

198 Art. 5 Regulation for management of construction waste and incorporation of recycled construction

materials (Наредба за управление на строителните отпадъци и за влагане на рециклирани строителни

материали) Council of Ministers’ Order 277 (2012) 89 SG, the obligation in force from 13 July 2014 pursuant

to the Waste Management Act (Закон за управление на отпадъците) Ministry of Environment and Water

(2012) 53 SG, amended (2013) 66, implementing Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance) [2008] OJ

L312/3.

199 (n 198) Art 4.

of 88 Pages

App 4 Number of design documents proceeded for a dwelling

Bulgaria

1. Site layout (Architecture);

2. Ground floor plan (Architecture)

3. First floor plan (Architecture)

4. Roof layout (Architecture)

5. Elevations (Architecture)

6. Sections (Architecture)

7. Explanatory note (Architecture);

8. Foundation plan (Structure);

9. Ground floor plan (Structure);

10. First floor plan (Structure);

11. Roof plan/sections/details (Structure);

12. Reinforcement plan foundations (Structure);

13. Reinforcement plan ground floor (Structure);

14. Reinforcement plan first floor (Structure);

15. Explanatory note (Structure);

16. Calculations (Structure);

17. Site plan (Electrical);

18. Ground floor lighting and sockage layout (Electrical);

19. First floor lighting and sockage layout (Electrical);

20. Ground floor weak current installations (e.g. audio visual system, phone, data

cabling) (Electrical);

21. First floor weak current installations (Electrical);

22. Lightning protection scheme (Electrical);

23. Principle switchboard diagrams (Electrical);

24. Explanatory note with calculations (Electrical);

25. Ground floor layout / sections (Plumbing);

26. First floor layout / sections (Plumbing);

27. Ground floor layout / sections (Drainage);

28. First floor layout / sections (Drainage);

29. Axonometric schemes (Plumbing & Drainage);

30. Explanatory note with calculations (Plumbing & Drainage);

31. Boiler room layout and scheme (HVAC);

32. Ground floor layout (HVAC);

33. First floor layout (HVAC);

34. Heating scheme;

35. Explanatory note (HVAC);

36. Calculations (HVAC);

37. Explanatory note with calculations and architectural-structural details (EE);

38. Site layout (Landscaping);

39. Dendrology design (Landscaping);

40. Explanatory note (Landscaping);

41. Site layout (Geodesy);

42. Setting out plan (Geodesy);

43. Vertical planning layout and sections (Geodesy);

44. Earth masses balance (Geodesy);

45. Explanatory note (Geodesy);

46. Organisation plan (HSP);

47. Construction site layout (HSP);

of 88 Pages

48. Complex Schedule for sequence of works (HSP);

49. Fire safety, emergency and evacuation plans for personnel on site (HSP);

50. Measures and requirements for provision of safety and health during construction, including sites with specific risks; lists and schemes (HSP,

details in Appendix 3, part X).

England 1. Site plan;

2. Statement specifying the number of storeys;

3. Particulars of the provision to be made for the drainage and the steps to be taken to comply with any local enactment.

France 1. Situation map;

2. Site plan;






8. Picture of the background of the land;

9. Statement for compliance with thermal regulations;

10. Feasibility study of energy sources for heating, ventilation, cooling, domestic

hot water and lighting facilities;

11. Certificate from technical controller for seismic areas.

Germany 1. Cadastre map extract (1:1000 scale);

2. Situation plan;

3. Ground floor plan (Construction drawings);

4. First floor plan (Construction drawings);

5. Roof layout (Construction drawings);

6. Elevations (Construction drawings);

7. Sections (Construction drawings);

8. Construction description (Baubeschreibung): a technical specification, evidencing compliance with planning and technical requirements.

9. Stability proof (Standsicherheitsnachweis), including structural calculations, drawings and explanations.

Italy 1. Extract of the cadaster map;

2. Extract of the General Regulation Plan;

3. Location plan with terrain profiles (scale 1:500);

4. Landscaping plan (incl. existing and new greening, scale 1:500);

5. Accessibility plan (scale 1:500);

6. Ground floor plan floor (Architecture)




10. Sections (Architecture);

11. Photographic documentation of the zone, including existing vegetation.

12. Technical report, illustrating CA with state, regional and municipality

regulations;

13. Excavation schedule;

of 88 Pages

14. Geology and hydrology report;

15. Technical schedule with planning limitations data and calculations of

volumes/ areas, etc. 200

16. Ground floor scheme/plan (Electrical);

17. First floor scheme/plan (Electrical);

18. Technical report (Electrical);201

19. Geotechnical report;

20. Technical report (Structure);

21. Report on foundations (Structure);

22. Report with calculations (Structure);

23. Summary report for essential structural elements;

24. Safety report (Structure);


26. Floor plan ground floor (Structure);

27. Floor plan first floor (Structure);

28. Roof plan/ sections/ details (Structure);


30. Reinforcement plan ground floor (Structure);

31. Reinforcement plan first floor (Structure);

32. Report for materials;

33. Maintenance plan (Structure).202

200 All above documents are listed in (n 160).

201 Part electrical is pursuant to (n 163).

202 Part structure is in the scope and contents listed in the template for seismic authorization/ registration,

Regione Umbria, Giunta Regionale (Modello (Mod. Ru/Sismica/3S) di richiesta autorizzazione, preavviso

scritto o registrazione del progetto delle strutture) pursuant to DGR 325/2012 (Atto di indirizzo sulle

procedure regionali relative alle competenze previste dall’art. 3, comma 1, lett. a) della L.R. n.5 del

27.01.2010 e smi).

of 88 Pages

App 5 Number of design documents proceeded for a medical

centre Bulgaria

1. Site layout (Architecture);

2. Ground floor (Architecture);

3. First floor (Architecture);

4. Furniture layout ground floor (Architecture);

5. First floor layout furniture (Architecture);

6. Suspended ceiling layout ground floor (Architecture);

7. Suspended ceiling layout first floor(Architecture);

8. Roof layout (Architecture);

9. Elevations (Architecture);


11. Explanatory note (Architecture);

12. Ground floor specification of equipment, ToR for el/ P&S/ HVAC (Technology);

13. First floor specification of equipment, ToR for el/ P&S/ HVAC (Technology);

14. Explanatory note (Technology);


16. Ground floor (Structure);

17. First floor (Structure);



20. HD bolt plan (Structure);

21. Steel structure layout / sections/ details (Structure);

22. Steel structure elements / sections / specification (Structure);

23. Precast concrete stairs layout/ reinforcement/ specification/ handrails/ details

(Structure);

24. Precast concrete planks first floor assembly plan/ sections/ specification/ details (Structure);

25. Precast concrete ground floor beams layout/ sections/ reinforcement/ specification/ details (Structure);

26. Explanatory note (Structure);


28. Site plan (Electricity);

29. Ground floor lighting and sockage layout (Electrical);

30. First floor lighting and sockage layout (Electrical);

31. Ground floor weak current installations (e.g. audio visual system, phone, data

cabling, fire alarm, access control, video surveillance) (Electrical);

32. First floor weak current installations (Electrical);

33. Lightning protection scheme (Electrical);

34. Grounding scheme (Electrical);

35. Principle switchboards diagrams (Electrical);

36. Foul pump control principle diagram (Electrical);

37. Principle diagrams for HVAC control (Electrical);

38. UPS and servers connections and control schemes (Electrical);

39. Principle diagrams for fire alarm, video surveillance, access control, etc

(Electrical);

40. Explanatory note (Electrical);

41. Technical specification for electrical installations (Electrical);

42. Calculations (Electrical);

of 88 Pages

43. Site plan (Plumbing & Drainage);

44. Longitudinal profile /sections/ assembly plan (Water supply);

45. Longitudinal profile /sections (Sewage connection);

46. Ground floor layout / sections (Plumbing);

47. First floor layout / sections (Plumbing);

48. Ground floor layout / sections (Drainage);

49. First floor layout / sections (Drainage);

50. Axonometric schemes (Plumbing);

51. Axonometric schemes (Drainage);

52. Drainage equipment layout/ specifications (foul pump, petrol interceptor);

53. Explanatory note with calculations (Plumbing & Drainage);

54. Boiler layout/ functional scheme/ ventilation (HVAC);

55. Ground floor layout (Heating);

56. First floor layout (Heating);

57. Heating schematic;

58. Ground floor layout (Ventilation);

59. First floor layout (Ventilation);

60. Ventilation schematic;

61. Air conditioning ground floor;

62. Air conditioning first floor;

63. Air conditioning server and other technical premises;

64. Plan for location of the chimney and aerodynamic shadows of buildings;

65. Terms of reference for control and automation, developed in part electrical;

66. Explanatory note (HVAC);

67. Calculations (HVAC);

68. Explanatory note with calculations and architectural-structural details (EE);

69. Site layout/ sections (Landscaping);

70. Dendrology design (Landscaping);

71. Explanatory note (Landscaping);





76. Explanatory note (Geodesy);

77. Site plan (Fire safety);

78. Ground floor (Fire safety);

79. First floor (Fire safety);

80. Explanatory note (Fire safety);

81. Organisation plan (HSP);

82. Construction site layout plan (HSP);

83. Complex Schedule for sequence of works (HSP);

84. Fire safety, emergency and evacuation plans for personnel on site (HSP);

85. Measures and requirements for provision of safety and health during

construction, including sites with specific risks; lists and schemes (HSP, details in Appendix 3, part X).

86. Waste management plan.

England 1. Existing site plan and survey (Geodesy);

2. Site plan;

3. Setting out plan;

4. Ground floor (Architecture);

of 88 Pages

5. First floor (Architecture);



8. Typical details (Scale 1:20) (Architecture);

9. Ground floor & first floor finishes;

10. Reception desks and glaze screens (Architecture);

11. Window and door schedules (Architecture);

12. External canopy details:


14. Ground floor GA, including details (Structure);

15. First floor GA, including details (Structure);

16. Roof GA, including sections and details (Structure);

17. Masonry elevations, including details (Structure);

18. Typical wind post section and detail (Structure);

19. Ground floor beam layout (Structure – by supplier);

20. Roof layout (Structure – by engineering company);

21. Roof section, details and truss profiles (Structure – by eng. company);

22. Truss calculations (Structure – by eng. company);

23. HD bolt plan (Steel Structure – by SF: Steelwork fabrication company);

24. Steel structure plan view (by SF);

25. Elevations: typical column & beam arrangement, truss support column (by

SF);

26. Steelwork 3-D view (by SF);

27. Typical lift installation;

28. Ground floor beam layout (Structure);

29. First floor PC slabs over ground floor walls (Structure – by supplier);

30. PC stairs layouts (Structure – by supplier);


32. Roof void Fire barrier:

33. Ground floor & first floor Fire plans;

34. Ground floor plan (Electrical);

35. First floor plan (Electrical);

36. Drainage plan showing attenuation tank (Drainage);

37. Attenuation tank size calculations (Drainage);

38. Doc M WC information (from supplier);

39. Foul pump documentation (from supplier);

40. Construction notes (Architecture, Structure, Drainage, Plumbing, Ventilation, Heating, Fire, Lift);

41. Radon report.

France 1. Situation map;

2. Site plan;






8. Picture of the background of the land;

9. Statement for compliance with thermal regulations;

10. Feasibility study of energy sources for heating, ventilation, cooling, domestic hot water and lighting facilities;

of 88 Pages

11. Certificate from technical controller for seismic areas;

12. 3-D drawing for the outdoor access (Accessibility file);

13. Ground floor plan (Accessibility file);

14. First floor plan (Accessibility file);

15. An explanatory note (Accessibility file);

16. Specification of materials (Safety file);

17. Ground floor plan (Safety file);

18. First floor plan (Safety file).

Germany 1. Cadastre map extract (1:1000 scale).

2. Situation plan;

3. Ground floor plan (Construction drawings)

4. First floor plan (Construction drawings)

5. Roof layout (Construction drawings)

6. Elevations (Construction drawings)

7. Sections (Construction drawings)

8. A construction description (Baubeschreibung): a technical specification,

evidencing compliance with planning and technical requirements.

9. Stability proof (Standsicherheitsnachweis), including structural calculations,

drawings and explanations.

10. Fire safety proof (Brandschutznachweis)

Italy

1. Extract of the cadaster map;

2. Extract of the General Regulation Plan;

3. Location plan with terrain profiles (scale 1:500);

4. Lanscaping plan (incl. existing and new greening, scale 1:500);

5. Accessibility plan (scale 1:500);

6. Ground floor plan floor (Architecture)





11. Photographic documentation of the zone, including existing vegetation.

12. Technical report, illustrating CA with state, regional and municipality

regulations;

13. Excavation schedule;

14. Geology and hydrology report;

15. Technical schedule with planning limitations data and calculations of volumes/ areas, etc.

16. Geotechnical report;

17. Technical report (Structure);

18. Report on foundations (Structure);

19. Report with calculations (Structure);

20. Summary report for essential structural elements;

21. Safety report (Structure);




25. Roof plan/ sections/ details (Structure);


of 88 Pages

27. HD bolt plan (Structure);

28. Steel structure layout / sections/ details (Structure);

29. Steel structure elements / sections / specification (Structure);

30. Precast concrete stairs layout/ reinforcement/ specification/ handrails/ details

(Structure);

31. Precast concrete planks first floor assembly plan/ sections/ specification/

details (Structure);

32. Precast concrete ground floor beams layout/ sections/ reinforcement/ specification/ details (Structure);

33. Report for materials;

34. Maintenance plan (Structure);

35. Technical report (Fire safety);

36. Site layout (Fire safety);

37. Ground floor (Fire safety);

38. First floor (Fire safety);

39. Sections (Fire safety).

of 88 Pages

App 6 Number of design documents proposed for building notice

regime in Bulgaria for a dwelling 1. Site layout with greening and infrastructure (Architecture);

2. Ground floor plan (Architecture);

3. First floor plan (Architecture);




7. Construction notes (all parts).

App 7 Number of design documents proposed for a medical

centre in Bulgaria 1. Site layout (Architecture & Fire safety & Landscaping);

2. Ground floor plan (Architecture & Fire safety);

3. First floor plan (Architecture & Fire safety);




7. Explanatory note, including Energy efficiency (Architecture);

8. Ground floor specification of equipment, ToR for el/ P&S/ HVAC

(Technology);

9. First floor specification of equipment, ToR for el/ P&S/ HVAC (Technology);

10. Explanatory note (Technology and installations);





15. Explanatory note, including HSP and WMP (Structure);


17. Site plan (Infrastructure and connections to utilities).





22. Explanatory note (Geodesy).

of 88 Pages

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Britton P., ‘The State, the Building Code and the Courts: Prevention or Cure?’

(SCL (UK) Paper D152a December 2013)

2. DCLG, Proposed changes to the building control system: Consultation stage

impact assessment (ISBN: 978-1-4098-3258-4 2012)

3. DCLG: London, Multi-criteria Analysis: a Manual (Communities and Local Government Publications ISBN: 978-1-4098-1023-0 January 2009)

4. Dunn W.N., Public Policy Analysis an Introduction (Ed 5 2008)

5. Heijden J., Building Regulatory Enforcement Regimes: Comparative Analysis of

Private Sector Involvement in the Enforcement of Public Building Regulations (IOS Press BV ISBN 978-1-58603-985-1 2009)

6. Oxford University Press, Oxford Dictionary of English, Kindle ed

7. Pedro J.A., Meijer F.M., Visscher H.J., Comparison of Building Permit Procedures in European Union Countries (COBRA 2011, RICS Construction and Property

Conference, Salford September 2011 Editors: Prof Les Ruddock; Dr Paul Chynoweth, ISBN: 978-1-907842-19-1) 415

8. Raitio J., The Principle of Legal Certainty in EC Law (Kluwer Academic

Publishers ISBN 1-4020-1217-9 2003)

9. Republic of Bulgaria Ministry of Finance, ‘Europe 2020: National Programme for

Reforms, Update 2014’ (2014)

10. World Bank, Doing Business 2014: Understanding Regulations for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises’ (ISBN 978-0-8213-9984-2, 11th edn)

Web sources

Dunn W.N., ‘Power Points and Teaching Notes’

<https://sites.google.com/a/policyonline.org/www/powerpointslides,datasets,andteachingnot> accessed 20 July 2014

Heijden, J., ‘International Comparative Analysis of Building Regulations: An Analytical Tool’ (2013) 1 International Journal of Law in the Built Environment 9-25

<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2204178> accessed 12th July 2014

Lean Enterprise Institute web site, <www.lean.org/WhatsLean/Principles.cfm> accessed 20 July 2014

European Union

‘Screening of National Building Regulations’ <http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/construction/studies/national-building-

regulations_en.htm> accessed 6 August 2014

‘Simplification under REFIT’ <http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/simplification/index_en.htm> accessed 24 September 2014

Construction <http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/construction/index_en.htm> accessed

7 August 2014.

EC Press Releases: 17 July 2014<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-

http://repository.tudelft.nl/search/ir/?q=creator%3A%22Costa%20Branco%20De%20Oliveira%20Pedro%2C%20J.A.%22

http://repository.tudelft.nl/search/ir/?q=creator%3A%22Meijer%2C%20F.M.%22

http://repository.tudelft.nl/search/ir/?q=creator%3A%22Visscher%2C%20H.J.%22

http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid:b391c687-3ecb-4017-abba-06f1539017e6

http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid:b391c687-3ecb-4017-abba-06f1539017e6



http://www.lean.org/WhatsLean/Principles.cfm


of 88 Pages

agenda/en/news/commission-encourages-re-use-public-sector-data> accessed 26 July 2014.

EC, ‘Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2014 - Developments in eGovernment in the EU 2014’, <https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/scoreboard-2014-developments-

egovernment-eu-2014> accessed 26 July 2014

Models to reduce the disproportionate regulatory burden on SMEs <http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/business-environment/administrative-

burdens/index_en.htm> accessed 25 September 2014

The EN Eurocodes <http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> accessed 7 August 2014.

Bulgaria

Council of Ministers, Appendices for Open Public Procurement Tender Procedure for Services with Subject: Activity 2 ‘Reducing the Administrative Burden in the Teritory Planning and in the Invesment Designs Implementation’ Project КБ 11-31-1/06.10.2011

‘Development of the Investment Policy in Bulgaria by Better Regulation of the Investment Process and E-Government Development’ OPEC

<www.google.bg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.government.bg%2Ffce%2F001%2F0235%2Ffiles%2F2810_pril_Dok_D2%2520_KB11_31_1.doc&ei=1KnkU5L8HKjMyAOutYGI

Bg&usg=AFQjCNG2WlXwYJX80rrszNXoXl0BM3mwPw> accessed 8 August 2014

Council of Ministers, Documentation for Open Public Procurement Tender Procedure for Services with Subject: Activity 3 ‘Creation of a Specialised Administrative Information

System for Management of the Investment Process Regulation’ Project КБ 11-31-1/06.10.2011 ‘Development of the Investment Policy in Bulgaria by Better Regulation of the Investment Process and E-Government Development’ OPEC

<www.google.bg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.government.bg%2Ffce%2F001%2F0235%

2Ffiles%2FDok_D3%2520_KB11_31_1_%252005_11_%252020131.docx&ei=EqXkU4mjBIbIyAP364LQAQ&usg=AFQjCNHerlhzg4gGuxtCuGHBtfHySM_LUQ> accessed 8 August 2014

DNCC Register for Consultants Performing CA Services

<www.dnsk.mrrb.government.bg/UI/Register.aspx?0ZKDwUgLUJomQ%2fiVsaJkdkSil%2fq%2b4n%2bGx%2bCYa8KC1g0%3d> accessed 25 September 2014

Parliament, ‘Investment Design Commission regular meeting MoM No.19’ (18 June

2014) <www.parliament.bg/bg/parliamentarycommittees/members/2069/steno/ID/3343> accessed 8 August 2014.

Sofia Municipality Building Permit Register <http://rs.gis-sofia.bg/> accessed 25

September 2014

England

Association of Consultant Approved Inspectors (ACAI) web site

<http://approvedinspectors.org.uk/> accessed 25 September 2014

CIC AIs Register <http://cic.org.uk/services/register.php> accessed 10 August 2014

DCLG Building regulations policy <www.gov.uk/government/policies/providing-effective-building-regulations-so-that-new-and-altered-buildings-are-safe-accessible-and-

efficient> accessed 25 September 2014

DCLG CP schemes <www.gov.uk/competent-person-scheme-current-schemes-and-how-schemes-are-authorised#current-schemes> accessed 10 August 2014




http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/business-environment/administrative-burdens/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/business-environment/administrative-burdens/index_en.htm

http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/









http://www.dnsk.mrrb.government.bg/UI/Register.aspx?0ZKDwUgLUJomQ%2fiVsaJkdkSil%2fq%2b4n%2bGx%2bCYa8KC1g0%3d

http://www.dnsk.mrrb.government.bg/UI/Register.aspx?0ZKDwUgLUJomQ%2fiVsaJkdkSil%2fq%2b4n%2bGx%2bCYa8KC1g0%3d

http://www.parliament.bg/bg/parliamentarycommittees/members/2069/steno/ID/3343

http://rs.gis-sofia.bg/

http://approvedinspectors.org.uk/

http://www.gov.uk/government/policies/providing-effective-building-regulations-so-that-new-and-altered-buildings-are-safe-accessible-and-efficient



http://www.gov.uk/competent-person-scheme-current-schemes-and-how-schemes-are-authorised#current-schemes

http://www.gov.uk/competent-person-scheme-current-schemes-and-how-schemes-are-authorised#current-schemes

of 88 Pages

DCLG, Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005: Guidance Note No. 1: Enforcement (2007) <www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-reform-fire-safety-order-2005-guidance-note-enforcement> accessed 25 September 2014

HM Government Cabinet Office’s web site Red Tape Challenge-Housing and

Construction, < www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/themehome/housing-and-construction/> accessed 29 July 2014

LABC web site <www.labc.uk.com/> accessed 25 September 2014

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Building Control web site

<www.rbkc.gov.uk/subsites/buildingcontrol.aspx> accessed 10 August 2014

France

Cadastre information available on <www.geoportail.gouv.fr/accueil> accessed 25 September 2014

Government web site with building permit application forms <http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/particuliers/N319.xhtml> accessed 13 August 2014

Government web site with legal sources <www.legifrance.gouv.fr/>

Technical Controllers’ Register on the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy web site <www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Liste_controleurs_techniques_07082014.pdf> accessed 12

August 2014

Germany

Brandenburg Ministry of Infrastructure and Agriculture web site

<hwww.mil.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.299592.de> accessed 17 August 2014

Detlef Sagebiel, ‘Technical verification and building permit procedures’ (Bautechnische Prüfung und Baugenehmigungsverfahren) Der Prüfingenieur (April 2005)

<www.google.bg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bvpi.de%2Fshared%2Fingenieur-box%2Fpruefingenieur%2Fpruefingenieur-

26.pdf&ei=ekrzU9ONHIXmyQPro4CgBQ&usg=AFQjCNEpGFpDwB_yeYlNcrzJc_i2AY30JA> accessed 19 August 2014

Economic Development Agency of the German State of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW),

‘Construction Laws’ <www.nrwinvest.com/Business_Guide_englisch/The_Legal_Framework/Planning_and_B

uilding1/index.php?Auswahl=%2Fnrwinvest_deutsch%2Findex.php&themabutton=Go> accessed 17 August 2014

Italy

Building control Capital Rome web site <www.comune.roma.it/wps/portal/pcr?jppagecode=xiii_urba_ispett.wp> acessed 25 September 2014

Regione Umbria web site: Minimum design and building permit applications www.territorio.regione.umbria.it/Mediacenter/FE/CategoriaMedia.aspx?idc=144&explicit=SI accessed 25 September 2014

Seismic authorisation procedures Rome

<www.architettiroma.it/ordine/comuni/procedure_sismica_Lazio/procedure_sismiche.html> acessed 25 September 2014

Template for Rome ‘Domanda di permesso di costruire’, Roma capitale

http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-reform-fire-safety-order-2005-guidance-note-enforcement

http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-reform-fire-safety-order-2005-guidance-note-enforcement

http://www.labc.uk.com/

http://www.geoportail.gouv.fr/accueil

http://www.mil.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.299592.de

http://www.google.bg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bvpi.de%2Fshared%2Fingenieur-box%2Fpruefingenieur%2Fpruefingenieur-26.pdf&ei=ekrzU9ONHIXmyQPro4CgBQ&usg=AFQjCNEpGFpDwB_yeYlNcrzJc_i2AY30JA





http://www.comune.roma.it/wps/portal/pcr?jppagecode=xiii_urba_ispett.wp

http://www.territorio.regione.umbria.it/Mediacenter/FE/CategoriaMedia.aspx?idc=144&explicit=SI

http://www.territorio.regione.umbria.it/Mediacenter/FE/CategoriaMedia.aspx?idc=144&explicit=SI

http://www.architettiroma.it/ordine/comuni/procedure_sismica_Lazio/procedure_sismiche.html

http://www.architettiroma.it/ordine/comuni/procedure_sismica_Lazio/procedure_sismiche.html

of 88 Pages

<www.urbanistica.comune.roma.it/pdc-modulistica.html>accessed 27 August 2014

The Department of firefighters, public rescue and civil defense (Dipartimento dei Vigili del Fuoco, del Soccorso Pubblico e della Difesa Civile) web site <http://www.vigilfuoco.it/aspx/Page.aspx?IdPage=5374> acessed 25 September 2014

TUE and other legal sources <www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=3600> accessed 25 September 2014

World Bank, ‘Doing Business 2014: Economy Profile: Bulgaria’ (Comparing Business Regulations for Domestic Firms in 189 Economies 11th edn) 28

<www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/giawb/doing%20business/documents/profiles/country/bgr.pdf> accessed 29 July 2014

World Bank, ‘What Role Should Risk-Based Inspections Play in Construction?’ Doing Business 2014 < http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-0-8213-9984-

2_Case_studies_2> accessed 25 September 2014

http://www.vigilfuoco.it/aspx/Page.aspx?IdPage=5374

http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=3600

http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-0-8213-9984-2_Case_studies_2

http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-0-8213-9984-2_Case_studies_2

final 26 september named

Documents

Transcript of final 26 september named