As an architectural designer and project manager, I am constantly confronted with bureaucratic hurdles, especially in the case of non-compliance with the legal deadlines that public administrations are supposed to respect. Compared to previous years, I can state from practice that the deadlines at the Administrative Units (hereinafter UE) alone (building permits) have been extended by an average of 4-5 months. An application should be decided within 2 months (according to the ZUP), which is far from being the case. As an example, I can mention only one of the applications, where the answer on the completeness of the application was sent only after 2 months, and after 6 months there is still no answer regarding the possible amendment or the issued Decision; notwithstanding the fact that there are no parties in the procedure (all the consents of the owners of the adjacent land have been obtained). We, the proxies from the side of the investor, are forced to constantly contact and "ask" the competent clerk at the UE and remind him that the deadlines under the ZUP have already been exceeded. There are so many excuses that unfortunately we can no longer justify this to an investor who would like to start construction (to obtain a housing loan - the condition is the Building Permit Decision). On average, the design process alone (with obtaining consents from the competent consenting authorities) takes approx. 4 months, while the documentation for the building permit is "processed" at the UE for approx. 4-5 months, and this for the "simpler" cases, where there are no parties to the procedure and no amendments. It is also interesting that if the clerk (as consenting officer, UE clerk or similar) is on leave, sick, etc. This is why we have already had a case where we have resubmitted an application with the intention of having it dealt with by a different officer, as the previous application has been stopped (granting of consent) and of course the time limits start running again. We cannot afford this in the economy, especially in a situation where there are fewer and fewer investors.
I therefore suggest that a list be introduced on the website of each UE for each officer separately, showing the order in which applications have been submitted (only the work order number or application number as indicated by the UE, known to the investor's agent or investor, and the stage at which the application is currently being processed would be publicly visible). In this way, it would be clear which stage the application is being processed at which stage, and there would be no need to contact the officer all the time; this would also help to ensure that the application is processed in the right order. At the same time, it would be possible to demonstrate to the investor that we are not the ones who are delaying the Building Permit Decision.