A conversation with Małgorzata Pilinkiewicz,
President of the National Council of the Polish Chamber of Architects

Małgorzata PILINKIEWICZ - President of the National Council of the Chamber of Architects of the Republic of Poland (term 2018-2022). She graduated from the Faculty of Architecture at the Silesian University of Technology. Since 1992, she has co-managed the office of archistudio studniarek+pilinkiewicz. She is the co-author of, among others, the building of the District Court in Katowice, the District Court in Konin, Siemianowice Śląskie, Radzyń Podlaski, the revitalization of the Orchid House, the Clerks' Casino and Manege at the Castle Museum in Łańcut, the Communal School Complex in Kazimierz Dolny, as well as houses and residences. She has been nominated four times for the Mies van der Rohe Award (2007, 2010, 2011, 2013).

Katarzyna Jagodzinska: What could be the consequences of implementing the government's proposal of houses - for one zloty, seventy meters high and without a building permit?

Malgorzata Pilinkiewicz: There are several aspects to this issue. The first is the parameter of a house set at 70 square meters of development and the associated special administrative procedures, which will cause inconsistency in the construction law system. In the Chamber's opinion, this will be an additional complication of the building regulations, so inconsistent that it may not only raise legal doubts, but also lead to different results than those assumed by the lawmakers. Single-family houses, including those up to 70 square meters, can already be built without a permit using the notification procedure. For a variety of reasons, however, this path of obtaining construction approval is not very popular. Instead, the proposals presented in the government's amendment to the Construction Law lead to an unsealing of the current system, both by limiting the conduct of construction, its inspection and supervision, as well as the obligation to keep a construction log. Restricting these obligations for houses up to 70 square meters of development is not justified.

Therefore, many more questions can also be asked in this regard. For example, why would 70 square meters of built-up area not require professional construction supervision, i.e., result in the absence of professional control over compliance with the law and safety of carrying out works, while 71 already do? Surely, taking advantage of the preference for houses with up to 70 square meters of built-up area, won't buildings with greater than expected parameters be built? From the history of Polish housing construction we know of houses whose areas were formally limited to 110 square meters, and which are much larger only because some of their rooms are less than 2.20 meters high, and yet they are used as residential. The current amendment to the law on obtaining the right to build a house up to 70 square meters opens up just such possibilities - where it will be possible to build houses with a larger floor area. Thus, we are returning to what we already know from the past.

However, one would have to ask what is the fundamental problem in obtaining the right to start construction? Designers unequivocally confirm that the main problem is the administrative procedures and conditions that must be met for the completion of an application for a building permit or notification. Also, the complication of the law and existing procedures will cause discrepancies in interpretation between offices. Current laws impose the same obligations for documentation of single-family houses and other categories of buildings. The most problematic for an investor embarking on the construction of a house is the waiting time for the preparation of documentation, for which the requirements are similar to those for much larger objects, including the need to obtain various agreements or opinions that require time and additional activity, such as the exclusion of land from agricultural production in cities. If the procedures are to be simplified and more friendly to those building single-family houses, why not simplify them for all single-family buildings, instead of giving preference to houses up to 70 square meters of built-up area?

The second disturbing element in the amendment proposal is the possibility of extending the notification procedure to freestanding single-story individual recreation buildings, understood as buildings intended for periodic recreation with a construction area of up to 70 square meters, without imposing an obligation to prepare a construction project, and without restrictions on the height of such buildings or the usable area. The only modification introduced in the next iteration of the amendment to the law of September 9 this year is the obligation to have a zoning decision in the absence of a local zoning plan (this provision was introduced, among other things, as a result of comments indicated by the Chamber of Architects of the Republic of Poland). The absence of such regulations would result in uncontrolled development and, consequently, changes in space on a massive scale. Moreover, under the notification procedure, an individual recreation building of up to 70 square meters would be built under much more liberal regulations than those that would apply to the construction of a single-family residential building of the same footprint. Also, the lack of a floor area limit means that in this type of building it is possible to legally expand the area by building a mezzanine floor. Unfortunately, the justification for the bill does not refer in any way to the proposal to double the building area of recreational buildings, for which the current applicable area is 35 square meters. The lack of justification for this proposal provokes speculation as to the intentions of the initiative, and the proposal itself is at odds with the main purpose of the changes being introduced as stated in the justification, namely the introduction of simple legal tools to enable the construction of single-family houses to meet one's own housing needs.

The third problem is the state's declaration of making house designs available for a symbolic zloty. In the opinion of the Chamber of Architects, this is unfair competition on the part of the state with regard to those who are in the business of designing.

Catherine: In the context of all these government proposals for change, what do you feel is the biggest threat?

Malgorzata: In the justification for the draft amendment to the Construction Law, it was pointed out that in the case of houses up to 70 square meters, as small structures, the author of the project is to supervise the compliance of the design with the implementation, instead of the construction manager. The Chamber of Architects of the Republic of Poland fundamentally disagrees with this argument, deeming it misguided mainly because the statutory powers of the designer exercising author's supervision are completely different from those of the construction manager. This is because the scope of the construction manager's tasks includes coordinating activities to ensure compliance with the rules of safety and health protection during the execution of construction work, the right to stop construction work in the event that the possibility of danger is identified and immediately notify the competent authority, taking the necessary measures to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the construction site, and ensuring the use of appropriate construction materials during the execution of construction work. These activities cannot be carried out by the supervising designer, as he is not authorized to do them under the Construction Law. The scope and purpose of directing construction is inimical to the exercise of author's supervision. Author's supervision is within the scope of exercising design authority, while exercising the function of construction manager is assigned to executive authority. It should also be noted that author's supervision is performed at the request of the investor or the architectural-construction administration body, so there is a risk that the investor or the administration body will not request the designer to perform it at all. In such a situation, the construction will be deprived of any supervision. Taking into account the issues of competence, the scope of responsibility arising from the performance of author's supervision under certain requirements of the construction law differs from the scope and legal basis indicated for the function of construction manager. Consequently, the professional responsibility of the designer as a participant in the construction process is quite different from that of the construction manager, which is also reflected in the scope of professional insurance.

The September 9 version of the amendment does not fundamentally change the comments of the Chamber of Architects. Notifying the author of the project of the start of construction does not exempt him from the statutory obligation to provide author's supervision, however, without the obligation imposed on the investor to commission such activities. For the above reasons, it should be considered that the proposed solution may jeopardize construction safety, both in terms of the safety of construction work and the materials used. It is also another complication in the investment law system. Not only that the authors of the amendment do not seem to understand the difference between design and executive authorizations, but the duties of the author of the project performed as part of the author's supervision are to have a different scope depending on whether he designed a house of up to 70 square meters or perhaps a larger one.

Catherine: The government proposal is intended to speed up the process of building a small house. And how does it relate to the cost of construction?

Margaret: Is really the speed of the implementation itself the primary concern? Speed of implementation is never a good advisor. You will not speed up the technical and technological processes on the construction site. Every technology requires them, regardless of its nature. Abandoning professional control of these processes and professional evaluation of phenomena will not speed them up. This is because the sequence of works is a result of the technology and safety of their execution, not the archiving of information about their progress in the construction log or supervision and acceptance by the construction manager. On the other hand, deviation from these rules can cause chaos, technical and technological errors and even problems leading to improper operation of the building or its parts in the future. Today we are seeing such rapid technological development in construction that it is normal for more and more specialized professionals to appear on the construction site. The idea that nowadays it is possible to complete a building well on an "me with my brother-in-law" basis is anachronistic. I don't know if such statistics are kept, but information from architects' design practices indicates that the number of investments carried out by economic methods is declining. This is not a coincidence. Investors have learned that using professionals saves time, but also money.

Catherine: How will the new proposals affect land development?

Margaret: Proposals to increase the area of recreational houses or to build small single-family houses on large plots of land raise concerns about the spillover of single-family construction in areas that will have to be additionally communicated, equipped with technical infrastructure and then maintained. The cost of this construction will be seen by all of us, for example in transmission fees or road maintenance. Some will benefit, all will pay. The interference with the landscape will burden future generations. This, too, will be an additional cost of construction, only that it will be passed on to other fellow citizens. I also understand that all the current ideas about amending the zoning law, which were designed to stop urban sprawl, will not be continued. The government should also delete all the declarations on the subject that it painstakingly places in strategic documents, since it is promoting changes that go in a decidedly different direction.

Catherine: "The position of the Chamber of Architects of the Republic of Poland against the proposal for the state to distribute free construction projects for single-family houses with a construction area of up to 70 sq. m." issued on August 13, 2021, the problem of spatial order was briefly summarized with the statement that the government proposal "does not meet the requirements of spatial order, which is a social good," but without further argumentation. Instead, the issue was frequently raised by those commenting on the statement on the Chamber's Facebook profile. How do you address the arguments that were made in this discussion? Why didn't the Chamber's statement include arguments regarding the aforementioned urban sprawl, for example?

Margaret: We must take into account that there are regulations in place that should protect against uncontrolled development, which are related to local development plans. They derive the conditions under which one can build in a given area. Hence the conviction that the public interest in spatial order and landscape context should be safeguarded in this regard. However, there are doubts about the right to start construction with a notification for the construction of a house up to 70 square meters, which means abandoning the obligation of the authority to check whether the investment meets the requirements of the local plan or zoning decision, as well as the legitimacy of carrying out the procedure without the parties to the administrative proceedings.

Notifications for buildings with a building area of up to 70 square meters, with the simultaneous imprecise definition of their parameters and the lack of a limitation on the actual height of the building in conjunction with the possibility of bringing its location closer to the border, in accordance with current regulations, will result in the possibility of the authorized body accepting the notification of the construction of a building with an area of impact entering the neighboring plots, while not allowing the participation of possible parties in the administrative proceedings. Therefore, along with the proposals to simplify the procedures, unfortunately, we should also expect changes in the landscape and the way existing development functions, retrofitted with additional zones of dispersed housing. The number of inter-neighborhood conflicts is also likely to increase, and this is what spatial planning should prevent.