View
50
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
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: aks@eqe.bg
Date of birth: 23rd September 1960
Supervisor: Philip Britton LLB BCL, Senior Fellow, Faculty of Law
University of Melbourne, Australia; email: philip.britton@marshwinds.co.uk
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
Page 2 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.
Page 3 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
Page 4 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
Page 5 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
Page 6 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
Page 7 of 88 Pages
Short name Statute Relevant
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
Page 8 of 88 Pages
Short name Statute Relevant
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
Page 9 of 88 Pages
Short name Statute Relevant
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
Page 10 of 88 Pages
Short name Statute Relevant
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
Page 11 of 88 Pages
Short name Statute Relevant
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
Page 12 of 88 Pages
Short name Statute Relevant
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
Page 13 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
Page 14 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).
Page 15 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.
Page 16 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.
Page 17 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).
Page 18 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.”
Page 19 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
Page 20 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).
Page 21 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.
Page 22 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.
Page 23 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.
Page 24 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.
Page 25 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.
Page 26 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
Page 27 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.
Page 28 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.
Page 29 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
Page 30 of 88 Pages
Table 5. PSI Scoreboard for the compared states
Country Bulgaria UK France Germany Italy
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.
Page 31 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
Country Bulgaria UK France Germany Italy
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.
Page 32 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.
Page 33 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.
Page 34 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)
Page 35 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
Entering in force (Day 42)
Step 3
Building permit (Day 28)
Step 2
Design approval (Day 21)
Step 1
CA (Day 7)
Design (containing 10/11 parts)
Step 3
Entering in force (Day 51)
Step 2
Building permit (Day 37)
Step 1
Design approval, incl. CA (Day 30)
Design (containing 10/11 parts)
Step 2
Entering in force (Day 21)
Step 1
Building permit (Day 7)
Application
Page 36 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.
Page 37 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 building.control@rbkc.gov.uk
< www.rbkc.gov.uk/subsites/buildingcontrol/submitapplication.aspx> accessed 10 August 2014.
Page 38 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.
Page 39 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.
Page 40 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.
Page 41 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.
Page 42 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.
Page 43 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.
Page 44 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.
Page 45 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.
Page 46 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.
Page 47 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).
Page 48 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.
Page 49 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.
Page 50 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.
Page 51 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.
Page 52 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.
Page 53 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
Page 54 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).
Page 55 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).
Page 56 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.
Page 57 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 .
Page 58 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.
Page 59 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.
Page 60 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.
Page 61 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.
Page 62 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).
Page 63 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
Page 64 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.
Page 65 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
Page 66 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
Page 67 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
Page 68 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.
Page 69 of 88 Pages
APPENDICES
Page 70 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?
Page 71 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?
Page 72 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.
2. Explanatory note;
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.
2. Explanatory note;
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.
Page 73 of 88 Pages
2. Explanatory note;
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.
2. Explanatory note;
3. Calculations.
VI. Part energy efficiency190(added in 2009191)
1. Drawings: architectural-structural details;
2. Explanatory note;
3. Calculations.
VII. Part landscaping192
1. Drawings:
a. Site layout
b. Sections
c. Design of the alleys with specified paving
d. Dendrology design
2. Explanatory note;
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.
Page 74 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;
2. Explanatory note;
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).
Page 75 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.
Page 76 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);
Page 77 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;
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 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)
7. First floor plan (Architecture)
8. Roof layout (Architecture)
9. Elevations (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;
Page 78 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);
25. Foundation plan (Structure);
26. Floor plan ground floor (Structure);
27. Floor plan first floor (Structure);
28. Roof plan/ sections/ details (Structure);
29. Reinforcement plan foundations (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).
Page 79 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);
10. Sections (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);
15. Foundation plan (Structure);
16. Ground floor (Structure);
17. First floor (Structure);
18. Roof plan/sections/details (Structure);
19. Reinforcement plan foundations (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);
27. Calculations (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);
Page 80 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);
72. Site layout (Geodesy);
73. Setting out plan (Geodesy);
74. Vertical planning layout and sections (Geodesy);
75. Earth masses balance (Geodesy);
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);
Page 81 of 88 Pages
5. First floor (Architecture);
6. Elevations (Architecture);
7. Sections (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:
13. Foundation plan (Structure);
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);
31. Calculations (Structure);
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;
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 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;
Page 82 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)
7. First floor plan (Architecture)
8. Roof layout (Architecture)
9. Elevations (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;
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);
22. Foundation plan (Structure);
23. Ground floor (Structure);
24. First floor (Structure);
25. Roof plan/ sections/ details (Structure);
26. Reinforcement plan foundations (Structure);
Page 83 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).
Page 84 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);
4. Roof layout (Architecture);
5. Elevations (Architecture);
6. Sections (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);
4. Roof layout (Architecture);
5. Elevations (Architecture);
6. Sections (Architecture);
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);
11. Foundation plan (Structure);
12. Ground floor (Structure);
13. First floor (Structure);
14. Roof plan/sections/details (Structure);
15. Explanatory note, including HSP and WMP (Structure);
16. Calculations (Structure);
17. Site plan (Infrastructure and connections to utilities).
18. Site layout (Geodesy);
19. Setting out plan (Geodesy);
20. Vertical planning layout and sections (Geodesy);
21. Earth masses balance (Geodesy);
22. Explanatory note (Geodesy).
Page 85 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-
Page 86 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
Page 87 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
Page 88 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
Recommended