In practice, we have encountered the problem that interventions in the spatial area which do not require a building permit but do require a cultural protection consent are treated differently from interventions which require a building permit. We are referring in particular to the various types of excavation on agricultural land in the context of agro-remediation and on forest land, for which environmental permits must be obtained for entry. For such interventions, the law does not regulate in sufficient detail the procedure for obtaining a cultural protection consent when the intervention is in a cultural heritage protection regime area.
If the Law on the Construction of Structures does not regulate interventions which are not subject to a building permit and do not constitute the construction of structures, then the provisions of the Law on Agricultural Land should apply to land filling on agricultural land, and the provisions of the Law on Forests should apply to interventions on forest land (according to the intended use). In addition to the special provisions, the above-mentioned legislation should also regulate the procedures for obtaining consent for encroachment into protected areas. This raises a problem where the special regulation does not regulate the procedure for obtaining consent, nor does it refer to the provisions of the overarching regulations. In our view, this is also the situation in the field of cultural heritage protection.
According to Article 28(3) of the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No 16/08, 123/08 and 90/12), cultural heritage protection consent for interventions for which a building permit is required is issued as a project consent in accordance with the regulations governing construction. For the remaining interventions, the law does not lay down a procedure for granting consent, nor does it refer to the provisions of other regulations. Therefore, only the provisions of the General Administrative Procedure Act could be applied in this respect, which is unacceptable under the rule of law. According to Article 29(1) of the ZVKD, the cultural protection conditions of the institute must be obtained before the cultural protection consent is granted. It follows from that provision, read in conjunction with Article 28(1) of the ZVKD, that cultural protection conditions must be obtained for any intervention in the area, regardless of its complexity. We consider that such a general provision is unnecessary, particularly in the case of interventions for which a building permit is not required, since even in the absence of specific conditions from the institute, the provisions of the spatial plan, as laid down in Article 29(9) of the ZVKD, must be complied with in the planning process. This only prolongs the procedure. The problem of inadequate regulations in the field of cultural heritage may be even greater, since, judging by practice, the project conditions almost always also provide for archaeological investigations, which are usually linked to relatively high financial resources and to a longer time, which is always problematic in the case of construction, if the contractor does not meet the deadlines. It is therefore necessary to define such interventions in the ZVKD in a more appropriate way and to put them on an equal footing with interventions in other protection regimes, such as water. The biggest problem we see is that the ZVKD can be understood as meaning that a cultural protection consent cannot be obtained by silence because it does not refer to the provisions of the Construction Act. According to Article 29(9) of the ZVKD, the conditions for the granting of a cultural protection consent are deemed not to be necessary if the institute has not issued the conditions within 30 days of the application for the conditions. However, if the conditions for issuing a cultural protection consent are the same as the cultural protection or design conditions, the time limit for issuing these conditions is unreasonably long and should be brought into line with the time limit for construction, which is 15 days.
Furthermore, the ZVKD does not specify what happens after the expiry of the time limit for issuing cultural protection conditions, or whether consent is deemed to have been given. According to Article 30(2) of the ZVKD, consent is deemed to have been granted if the cultural protection conditions have been obtained and if the institute has not decided otherwise within 15 days of the application for consent. It follows from the above provision that tacit consent cannot be obtained under this provision at all, since it is a condition that cultural protection conditions have been issued beforehand. In order to make the distinction between minor interventions in cultural heritage protection regimes in the field of obtaining planning conditions and issuing consents more equal or appropriate, we propose the following amendments to the ZVKD:- Amend or supplement the provision of Article 28(3) of the ZVKD to read as follows:
Cultural and conservation consent shall be issued for interventions for which a building permit is required as a project consent in accordance with the regulations governing building, and for the remaining interventions as a consent ...unless otherwise provided for in this Act.
- Amend or supplement the provision of Article 29(1) of the ZVKD to read as follows:
"For interventions for which a building permit is required, cultural protection conditions of the institute must be obtained under the regulations governing the construction of buildings before a cultural protection consent is issued, unless otherwise provided for in this Act. For the remaining interventions, cultural protection conditions are not mandatory."
 
- Amend or supplement the provision of Article 29(9) of the ZVKD to read as follows:
"If the institute has not issued cultural protection conditions for interventions for which a building permit is required within 30 days of the application for the conditions, it shall be deemed that the conditions for the cultural protection consent are not required and the consent is hereby granted. For interventions for which a building permit is not required, the aforementioned time limit is 15 days." - Amend or supplement the provision of Article 30(2) of the ZVKD to read:
"If the cultural and conservation conditions have been obtained and if the institute has not decided otherwise within 15 days after the application for consent has been submitted, the consent shall be deemed to have been granted." In conclusion, we find it incomprehensible that, following the entry into force of the amendment to the Building Construction Act in 2012, the provisions of the ZVKD have not been amended accordingly so that all interventions in conservation regimes are at least roughly on an equal footing in terms of obtaining consents. The lack of clarity of the rules also gives the competent authorities the right to impose unreasonable conditions, which often make it impossible to interfere with the protection of cultural heritage sites altogether. This is one of the reasons why we are submitting this initiative. We expect an appropriate response from the competent authority on this initiative, which will make it clear whether the proposed initiative demonstrates a basis for amending the ZVKD, which would make it much easier or faster for the user or interested party to access a specific right. By easier, we mean in particular a reasonable time to obtain the final authorisation, which requires a cultural protection consent.