This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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)
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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;
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
“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’,
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
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
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-
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
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
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
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)
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
<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-