In practice, we have encountered the problem that developments not subject to planning permission are treated differently from those subject to planning permission. We are referring here to the provisions of the legislation governing the obtaining of consents. In the appeal proceedings, it has been shown that, for example, water consent cannot be obtained by acquiescence for the filling in of excavations on agricultural land, since the Construction Act and the Water Act allow such a method of obtaining consent only in the field of construction. We consider that such a distinction between interventions is inadmissible if it is in fact present, since land filling is clearly a less demanding intervention than the construction of buildings, and therefore there should be a reverse distinction in the procedures than is currently present. We are therefore submitting this initiative for more appropriate regulation or for all land-use interventions to be put on an equal footing at the level of the legislation governing consents, and in particular the Water Act, since these procedures usually take the longest time. In this context, account should be taken of the fact that almost all construction projects also require a specific site for the permanent introduction of excavations and that, for this reason, the procedures for obtaining water consent for environmental permits for the introduction of excavations should not take an unreasonably long time.
 
Pursuant to Article 151a(2) of the Water Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 67/02, 110/02 - ZGO-1, 2/04 - ZZdrl-A, 41/04 - ZVO-1, 57/08 and 57/12) - hereinafter referred to as (ZV), a water consent must be obtained on the basis of this Act in cases of an intervention in space which does not require a building permit under the regulations governing the construction of buildings, but for which a water consent must be obtained, before the commencement of the development, obtain the conditions to be met by the proposed development relating to water protection, water regulation, protection of the natural balance of aquatic and peripheral ecosystems and the existing water rights of other persons. It follows from the above provision that project conditions must be obtained before any filling is planned in the area of water protection regimes, regardless of its complexity.
According to Article 151a(6) of the ZV, it is not necessary to obtain project conditions or other conditions for intervention in the spatial planning for simple and non-complex objects, unless this is provided for in the regulations governing protection or endangered areas under this Law or in the case of water structures. It follows from the above provisions of the ZV that, already in the case of project conditions, the distinction between interventions is obvious and inadmissible, if the risks to water that may arise from one or the other intervention are assessed. On the basis of the above, we consider that land filling for the purpose of agro-remediation up to a certain threshold should also be classified as an operation under Article 151a(6) of the ZV. This would be possible if the threshold were limited to the regulation on mandatory environmental impact assessment, as is the case for the construction of buildings.
More controversial, however, may be the provision of Article 152(1) of the ZV, which may allow for distinctions between different types of interventions. Here, we limit ourselves to other interventions in the spatial area which are not subject to a building permit. According to this provision, the regulations governing the construction of buildings apply to the procedure for setting design conditions and conditions for other interventions in the spatial area, unless otherwise provided for in this Act. In the view of the appellate authority, the provisions of the PGI cannot be invoked for the project conditions for these interventions, since the PGI only regulates the construction of buildings. In our view, however, the provisions of the PGI should be applied mutatis mutandis to these interventions, insofar as they are not understood to apply only to the procedure, which also includes time limits. In our view, the above means that, for example, for agro-remediation with embankment, the 15-day time limit for the establishment of design conditions laid down in Article 50(3) of the PGI or the 30-day time limit laid down in Article 152(4) of the ZV and the consequences of silence laid down in Article 50(7) of the PGI apply. However, the Appellate Body does not understand these provisions in this way, and some amendment of this Law would be necessary, since the filling of agricultural land for the purpose of agro-remediation is clearly a less complex operation than the construction of, for example, less complex buildings under the PGI. Otherwise, the Appellate Bodies will continue to bureaucratise such matters, which will also directly and unacceptably hinder the construction of new buildings.In order to make the level playing field or to differentiate more appropriately between non-complex interventions in water protection regimes in the area of obtaining project conditions, we propose the following amendment to the ZV: amend the provision of paragraph 6 of Article 151a. "For buildings which, according to the provisions of the Act on the Construction of Buildings, are classified as simple buildings and non-complex buildings, and for other interventions in the spatial area which, according to the provisions of the Act on Agricultural Land, are classified as agro-remediation, it is not necessary to obtain project conditions or other conditions for intervention in the spatial area".
Furthermore, we propose to amend Article 152(1) of the ZV so that it reads: The procedure for setting project conditions, including the implied consent of the authority, shall be governed by the regulations governing the construction of buildings, unless otherwise provided for in this Law.
We expect an appropriate response from the competent authority in relation to this initiative, which will make it clear whether the proposed initiative demonstrates a basis for amending the ZV, which will make it significantly easier or quicker for the user or interested party to obtain a specific right. In this context, by easier, we mean in particular a reasonable time to obtain the final authorisation, which requires a water consent.