The amendment to the Building Act will help cut construction permitting from years to months. Less bureaucracy, clear accountability and a faster path to the buildings people need.
Selected benefits, common questions and expert reviews — mixed together in a single overview.
The top 4 principles of the reform. You will find all ten pillars of the Building Act amendment in the linked document.
A single integrated decision instead of dozens of partial approvals.
60 days for family houses, 12 months for large projects — measurable and enforceable.
Real tools for managing the territory in the hands of those who know it best.
Apartment buildings as a public interest, just like motorways or schools.
Choose your role and see the main changes that directly affect you.
A brief confrontation of the most common claims with reality.
“The amendment will worsen nature protection.”
Nature protection remains in place. On the contrary, the amendment strengthens it by merging the separate opinions into one integrated process with clear accountability.
“Municipalities will lose their decision-making powers.”
On the contrary. Municipalities gain a stronger role in spatial planning and real tools to manage their own territory.
“Projects already under way will have to start over.”
Transitional provisions ensure that proceedings already under way will be completed by the original authority under the existing rules.
Key dates for builders, designers and authorities.
The Government Commissioner for the implementation of building law is appointed and dismissed by the Government of the Czech Republic on a proposal from the Minister of Regional Development. As of 26 January 2026, the Government Commissioner is Ing. Hana Landová.
The Ministry of Regional Development is preparing a series of professional training sessions for building authority officials. The training will focus on legislative changes in spatial planning and building rules — held as online webinars over the summer and then in person in the regions from September.
The Ministry of Regional Development has presented the specific impacts of the planned Building Act amendment. The changes are meant to simplify construction permitting, reduce the administrative burden and strengthen legal certainty.
The first meeting of the Steering Committee for the project to implement the new state building administration model in the Czech Republic took place at the Ministry of Regional Development. Besides the MMR's management, representatives of other institutions also took part.
A meeting with representatives of environmental organisations took place at the Ministry of Regional Development. Deputy Minister Pavel Kryštof and the Government Commissioner for the implementation of building law, Hana Landová, discussed the impacts of the amendment.
The Building Act amendment affects citizens, builders, officials, municipalities, regions and other players in construction. The questions are grouped by audience, so everyone can quickly find the answers relevant to their situation.
Getting a building permit in the Czech Republic often takes years today. For more complex apartment buildings, preparation and permitting can stretch to 7 to 10 years. The process is complicated, confusing and the outcome uncertain. That has a direct impact on housing affordability, construction prices and the development of municipalities.
The amendment aims to change this. Its goal is to speed up and clarify construction permitting, remove unnecessary administrative steps and set clear accountability for decisions. This is not another minor patch to the system, but an effort to create a more stable and predictable environment for citizens, municipalities, officials and builders.
Yes, and positively. The amendment simplifies renovations and smaller projects, cuts unnecessary paperwork and reduces the number of obligations that burden small builders today.
The goal is for ordinary home improvements not to be a bureaucratic marathon. For simpler projects, the process should be proportionate to their scale and risk, so people don't have to handle the same amount of paperwork as for complex large projects.
On the contrary. The system should be clearer and more predictable. Fewer parallel proceedings, fewer vague requirements and clearly defined responsibility of the authority mean that even people who build or renovate once in a lifetime will find their way around the process more easily.
It is important that a citizen knows what to submit, to whom, and when they can expect a result. The amendment therefore aims to ensure that a builder does not go from office to office, but handles their project in a single, understandable process.
No. The amendment does not introduce building without rules. It keeps the requirements for safety, the protection of public interests, compliance with the zoning plan and the technical requirements for buildings.
The change is that oversight should be proportionate, coordinated and not needlessly repeated. If a particular question has already been assessed in spatial planning, it should not be reopened at every further stage of the procedure.
Yes. The amendment does not take away neighbours' right to defend their property, privacy or living conditions. Neighbours will be able to raise objections if a building directly affects their rights.
The point of the change is for objections to be specific, substantive and filed on time. The goal is not to allow endless blocking of construction through general disapproval, but the ability to defend oneself against a genuine interference with one's rights must remain.
No. Neighbours' right to object remains in place. The amendment only clarifies that construction proceedings should not be delayed by objections to matters that do not directly concern the neighbour.
If a project affects ownership rights, access, sunlight, privacy or another specific right, the neighbour can object. But if someone raises general disapproval with no specific impact on their rights, that should not be a reason to unduly prolong the procedure.
Yes, judicial protection remains in place. The Building Act sets a one-month deadline for a lawsuit against a building authority's decision, running from the notification of the decision.
This deadline is important for legal certainty. If a project is to have a predictable timeline, it must be clear by when a decision can be challenged and when the matter can be considered settled.
The amendment does not change the substantive scope of the public's rights. The public has a key role in spatial planning, where it is decided whether and where to build.
Construction proceedings then deal mainly with the technical execution of a specific project, which must comply with the planning documentation. The goal is to curb obstruction tools, not meaningful public participation.
No. The protection of nature and the landscape remains in place. Some processes are integrated into the decision-making of building authorities, others remain within the competence of the authorities concerned — for example in sensitive areas or under special protection regimes.
The change is meant to prevent the protection of individual interests from being applied unpredictably, repeatedly or disproportionately. This is not a weakening of protection, but better coordination of it.
No. The protection of monuments remains in place. Historic centres, monument reservations, monument zones, immovable monuments and their buffer zones remain under a special protection regime.
The amendment is meant to make processes clearer and set clearer accountability for decisions. The goal is not to allow insensitive interventions, but to ensure that the protection of cultural heritage works expertly, predictably and within reasonable deadlines.
Illegal buildings are not permissible under the new act either. However, the amendment better distinguishes between a serious breach of the rules and a less serious lapse.
The goal is to act firmly where necessary, while avoiding disproportionately harsh sanctions in cases where they would make no sense. Simplifying the legal route should also reduce the incentive to build without a permit.
Yes. The amendment strengthens the principle of protecting good faith. People do not understand why they should bear the harshest consequences — for example the threat of having a building demolished — if they themselves broke no rules and bought the property trusting that it had been duly permitted.
The law should distinguish between the actual culprit and a person who became the victim of a system error or of their legal predecessor's conduct. This is not an excuse for illegal buildings, but a fairer assessment of specific situations.
Yes. Building law should be able not only to oversee, but also to help quickly. After natural disasters it is important that people can return to normal life and restore their housing without unnecessary delays.
The amendment therefore allows faster procedures where recovery makes sense and there is no risk of repeating the same problem. The goal is a practical system that helps people in crisis situations.
Parcel lockers for delivery services are to be explicitly classified among minor structures in the free regime — that is, without the need for a building permit.
Installing them is to remain administratively simple, but basic rules — for example for safety, access or connection to infrastructure — still apply. They must also be built in line with the zoning plan. The goal is a clear and uniform solution for municipalities, operators and citizens.
The principle of “one procedure, one authority, one decision”. The builder no longer has to go from office to office collecting individual stamps with no clear accountability for the result.
The amendment is meant to replace the chaining of opinions with one coordinated process. The builder should have a single partner, clearer deadlines and a more predictable outcome.
The speed-up should come mainly from removing duplication. What has already been — or should have been — assessed in spatial planning should not be assessed again in the construction proceedings.
At the same time, deadlines are reinforced, the opinions of the authorities concerned are integrated, and the building authority's responsibility for the final decision is set out more clearly. The goal is to reduce the number of cases sent back, repeated requests for additions and procedural loops.
It means that a project is to be assessed according to the factual and legal situation as of the day the application is filed. This is crucial for the builder's legal certainty.
Today it can happen that during a long procedure the conditions change, the documentation has to be reworked, recirculated and reheard. A fixed decisive date is meant to prevent the procedure from endlessly returning to the start because of changes the builder could not have known about when filing the application.
Yes. The amendment envisages that, together with the application, the builder may also submit a draft decision, including its reasoning.
It does not mean the builder decides for themselves. The decision is always made by the building authority. But for well-prepared applications such a draft can help considerably, because the authority gets a structured basis and does not have to create everything from scratch.
The amendment sets responsibility more clearly where it belongs. The designer and other authorised persons are responsible for the correctness and the fulfilment of technical requirements in the project documentation.
The building authority should not be a co-designer. Its task is not to professionally recalculate every specialised part of the project, but to assess the legality of the project, the protection of public interests and compliance with what it is supposed to evaluate under the law.
No. It means a better division of responsibility. The professional guarantee for the technical parts of the documentation is borne by an authorised person who carries professional liability.
This allows the authority to focus on what is its role: legality, public interests, procedural correctness and the project's compliance with the requirements of the law. This should increase both the quality and the speed of decision-making.
It is necessary to distinguish between the authorities concerned and the owners or operators of public transport and technical infrastructure. For the authorities concerned, the Building Act assumes they generally have 30 days to issue an opinion or binding opinion; in complex cases the deadline can be extended.
If they do not respond within the deadline, deemed consent without conditions may take effect under the conditions set by law. However, this does not apply in certain sensitive environmental cases, such as EIA, where the law explicitly excludes deemed consent.
For operators of public transport and technical infrastructure, it is legally inaccurate to claim automatically that the same deemed consent applies in all cases as for the authorities concerned.
Even here, though, the amendment is meant to reinforce deadlines and predictability. Network operators are to respect the deadlines for their opinions, typically 30 days and in particularly complex cases 60 days. The key point is that the builder does not wait indefinitely.
Simplification does not mean weaker safety. With fire safety, the goal is to simplify the process, not the standard of protection.
The fire service has reassessed the scope of its requirements for buildings, documentation and the way matters are handled. Buildings and processes should be better differentiated according to fire risk. For simpler buildings and projects with minimal fire risk, an administrative simplification of procedures is expected, while for buildings with higher fire risk the application of fire-protection requirements remains essential.
A binding opinion from the state fire-supervision authority remains in place for buildings where the fire risk is significant. These are typically tunnels, hospitals, shopping centres or other buildings that are difficult to evacuate in the event of a fire.
The change therefore does not concern the standard of protection, but the smoothness of the procedure and the removal of unnecessary administrative steps where the risk is not high.
Yes. The amendment strengthens the use of authorised inspectors. Already today, an expert report by an authorised inspector can be attached to the application, certifying that the building matches its permit, is fit for use and meets construction requirements.
The amendment allows authorised inspectors to issue the final approval decision as well. This can significantly speed up the final stage, which is often crucial for builders because of mortgages, the land registry or dealing with the property.
Proceedings already under way will be completed under the transitional provisions, so they are not needlessly complicated or sent back to the start.
The goal is a smooth transition, not a halt to ongoing projects. If some administrative procedures are abolished by the amendment, they will be discontinued, or their usable parts will be used in further decision-making.
The goal is the exact opposite. Today the biggest source of disputes is the lack of clarity, inconsistent practice and the repeated procedural sending-back of cases.
Clearer rules, fewer obstructions, firmer accountability and an emphasis on proportionality should reduce the incentive for tactical disputes. Judicial protection remains in place, but the system should be more predictable.
It is the principle that if a project can be adjusted to meet the legal requirements, the building authority should preferably set conditions and issue the permit rather than reject the application outright.
This is not a novelty that circumvents the law. The legal order already knows a similar principle. The amendment explicitly confirms and clarifies it. If the conditions cannot be met, the application is of course rejected.
The amendment sets a basic time frame of 6 months for the field part of an archaeological survey before construction, with the option to extend it by agreement.
The goal is greater predictability. Today surveys can take an unpredictably long time, which complicates investment planning, the booking of construction capacity and the drawing of subsidies. The protection of archaeological heritage remains in place, but the process should be more manageable in time.
The goal is to simplify officials' work, not add more bureaucracy. The amendment removes duplicate processes, repeated assessments and unclear boundaries of responsibility.
Officials should have clearer methodology, stable backing and a more understandable process. Reducing paperwork should help officials focus on the genuinely essential assessment of a project.
Responsibility will be borne by the building authority as a whole. This should increase the clarity of decision-making and end the shifting of responsibility between individual bodies.
Clear responsibility is important for builders and for the officials themselves. Everyone should know who is to handle the matter, at what stage and with what outcome.
The building authority is to assess legality, public interests, procedural correctness and the project's compliance with statutory requirements. But it should not replace the work of the designer, the structural engineer, the fire specialist or another authorised expert.
The amendment therefore defines the designer's responsibility more clearly. The authority should not pretend it is able to fully review all the highly specialised work of authorised persons.
The designer is responsible for the correctness of the project documentation and for meeting the technical requirements. If they cannot prepare a particular part themselves, they must bring in a specialist who is responsible for their part.
At the same time, the designer is not responsible for deviations that arose during construction without their consent. The amendment thus more precisely distinguishes what is the designer's responsibility and what is the role of the building authority.
Yes. Implementation is to proceed in a managed way, with methodological support and in cooperation with ministries, municipalities, regions and other players.
Part of the preparation is communication with local governments, building authorities, municipal secretaries, regions and the officials themselves. The goal is for the transition not to be abrupt and for officials to have timely access to information, methodology and contacts for resolving practical questions.
The current system already runs into staffing problems today. Some authorities are chronically understaffed and a large share of officials are at or near retirement age. The new system is meant to enable the sharing of capacity, interchangeability and unified methodological support.
The act is therefore designed to simplify the system, not burden it. Fewer duplicate steps and clear responsibility should reduce the demands on capacity.
Building authority officials are meant to be a key asset of the new system. The reform aims to create a more professional and stable environment in which officials will have clearer methodology, better interchangeability and professional backing.
The transition is to take place gradually, in accordance with labour-law rules and with regard to the practical functioning of the authorities. The goal is not to lose experienced people, but to give them more stable conditions for handling a demanding agenda.
No. The transition of officials into the new structure is not to be based on an unrealistic deadline for an immediate decision.
The creation of the new structure is spread over time and the transition is to be handled gradually. The goal is for officials to have enough information about the next steps and for the change to be prepared in a managed way, not abruptly.
In 2027, building authorities are to operate in a transitional mode. This means a gradual integration of agendas is expected, and the whole system will not change overnight.
Transitional provisions are meant to ensure there is no chaos or interruption in carrying out the agenda. The goal is a smooth transition to the new structure of the state building administration.
This question is part of the implementation project. It addresses the transfer of files, digitalisation and the setting of unified procedures so that the continuity of records of construction documentation is not disrupted.
The goal is a well-thought-out transition that takes into account the practical impacts in the regions and allows authorities to continue working without losing documentation or procedural continuity.
Speed is not a goal in itself. The goal is to remove unnecessary delays, duplication and repetition.
On the contrary, the quality of decision-making should improve, because relevant interests are assessed in a coordinated way, responsibility is clearly defined and authorities receive more unified methodology.
On the contrary. The amendment strengthens the position of municipalities and regions in spatial planning. The right to territorial self-government is included among the public interests, and municipalities and regions are to defend the public interest in the development of their territory.
Municipalities and regions will draw up planning documentation within their independent powers. This means stronger political accountability and a greater ability to genuinely decide on the shape of their territory.
It means that spatial planning will be more strongly tied to self-governing responsibility. A municipality or region is to decide how its territory should develop, which needs of residents it should meet and which values it should protect.
Until now, drawing up planning documentation was more tied to delegated powers. The amendment changes this model so that local governments have more direct control over the development of their territory.
The municipality remains a party to the proceedings and can raise objections on matters related to the zoning plan, the development of the territory and the protection of values within its independent powers.
At the same time, the importance of spatial planning is strengthened. The municipality is to set the development concept — that is, what should happen in the territory and where. The state building administration then assesses the specific project expertly, under the law.
No. Local knowledge is preserved through municipal spatial planning and the municipalities' participation in proceedings. Officials are to continue working in the regions, and where it makes sense, branch offices can be set up.
The goal of the change is not to limit the influence of local governments, but to remove the fragmentation of the system and unify decision-making methodology.
The plan is to create the Office for Spatial Development, 14 regional development offices in the regional capitals and the City of Prague, and 205 territorial offices in municipalities with extended powers. Branch offices in further municipalities will be set up as needed.
The aim of the new structure is to unify methodology and decision-making practice, eliminate systemic bias, reduce jurisdictional disputes and enable the sharing of capacity.
The number of authorities alone is no guarantee of a functioning system. Today the system suffers from a shortage of officials, divergent practice, jurisdictional disputes and inconsistent interpretation of the rules.
The new system is meant to enable the sharing of capacity, interchangeability, more stable methodology and more consistent decision-making. What matters is not only that an authority is physically close, but that it decides expertly, predictably and within statutory deadlines.
Branch offices beyond the basic network of territorial offices are to be set up according to the needs of the area. Economic, staffing and capacity efficiency, as well as demand from municipalities, are to be taken into account.
The point is to maintain accessibility where high-quality handling of the agenda can be ensured, not to mechanically keep a structure regardless of staffing and professional capacity.
Yes. It is municipalities that often run into the same barriers as private builders: long proceedings, uncertain outcomes, repeated requests for additions and the inability to complete a project within a subsidy period or an electoral term.
Faster spatial planning, clearer rules and more predictable permitting are meant to help municipalities prepare schools, kindergartens, health and social facilities, affordable housing and transport and technical infrastructure.
The amendment drops some unnecessary formal steps and allows a faster procedure for changes that do not interfere with the concept of the zoning plan. Minor changes in developable areas should be possible within a matter of months.
The goal is that municipalities do not have to go through a lengthy process — which today can take years — for minor corrections, refinements or specific needs.
This is the municipality's option to clarify questions of interpretation or to agree to a minor deviation in cases where no public interests are affected and the affected owners and eligible investors agree.
This could be, for example, a practical refinement in the area that does not change the meaning and purpose of the zoning plan, but makes it possible to reasonably permit a specific project without the need for a lengthy change to the planning documentation.
The amendment strengthens planning contracts and the ability to address, in a predictable way, the impacts of new construction on public infrastructure and the municipal budget.
If new development creates a need for pavements, sewerage, transport, school capacity, greenery or services, it should be possible to address these costs and obligations transparently and on time. The goal is a fair relationship, not ad-hoc bargaining.
The amendment envisages tools that will allow municipalities to respond better to situations where a change to the planning documentation increases the value of land.
The point is for territorial development to bring a fair benefit to the municipality as well, since it has to provide public infrastructure and services for new residents or users of the area.
The aim of the reform is to transfer the performance of the building administration to the state and to end the situation where municipalities subsidise the performance of state administration from their own budgets.
The specific arrangement of financing, compensation and operating costs is part of the implementation preparations. Employment-law questions are to be handled according to standard rules.
The implementation includes a project team and a network of regional coordinators. They are to communicate with local governments in the regions and help resolve specific issues — staffing, organisational and technical.
Municipalities should thus have specific contacts with whom they can resolve their questions directly. The goal is for the transition to the new system to be not just a formal change of law, but a genuinely managed process.
The amendment provides a safety net for municipalities that do not want to, or cannot, draw up a zoning plan on their own. In such a case, the municipality can reach an agreement with another municipality, the region or a qualified provider, or with an association of municipalities (whose status was adjusted precisely to enable this option). A municipality can also ask the regional Office for Spatial Development, which is obliged to draw up the zoning plan for the municipality at its own expense.
The goal is to strengthen local governments, while at the same time not leaving smaller municipalities without professional help.
The amendment does not arise in a vacuum. It builds on several years of expert debate about building law and responds to problems that piecemeal adjustments have long failed to solve.
At the same time, the legislative process allows for comments, committee discussions, amendments, debate in the Senate and the President's signature. The final form of the act emerges within the standard parliamentary process.
A private member's bill is a legitimate route that the legal order allows. It does not mean circumventing debate. The bill is discussed in Parliament and can be amended within the standard legislative process.
The reason is the urgency of the situation. Preparing an entirely new government bill would mean losing further years at a time when construction permitting is one of the main barriers to affordable housing and the development of municipalities.
Yes. The bill is part of the legislative process, and amendments may be submitted and discussed during deliberation.
Comments from ministries, local governments, the professional public and other institutions may be reflected in the final wording. The final form of the act will emerge only after the legislative process is completed.
Yes. The bill was refined and supplemented based on the debates. The discussion showed where the system gets stuck most in practice and where the legislative text is unclear or confusing for practitioners.
The basic direction does not change: the goal is faster, more predictable and less administratively burdensome construction permitting. But the resulting text reflects more of the practical comments from ministries, local governments, building officials, municipal secretaries, the professional public and citizens.
Inspiration from Poland is not about mechanically copying provisions. It is about learning from an approach that managed to reduce unnecessary delays, set responsibility more clearly and shrink the room for procedural chaos. Indeed, in 2025 the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), comparing the Czech Republic and Poland, also noted that the changes in Poland point in the right direction for Czech building law too.
The Czech system must match Czech legal and administrative conditions. The point of the comparison is to show that faster and more predictable construction permitting is not unrealistic, provided the state sets clear rules and accountability.
No. The act sets rules for all builders: citizens, municipalities, regions, the state, public investors, small builders and larger projects alike.
Large investors can often handle a complex system with advisers and lawyers. An ordinary citizen, a municipality or a smaller builder is often lost in today's system. Simplifying the processes therefore helps precisely those who do not have the capacity to spend years going from office to office and dealing with repeated requests for additions.
Housing unaffordability is one of the biggest problems in the Czech Republic. The supply of flats is a basic precondition for housing to become more affordable.
Including mass housing among the public interests does not mean that any residential building automatically takes precedence over everything else. It means that the need for housing is to be taken into account in decision-making as a significant public interest and fairly balanced against other protected interests.
Not automatically. Housing is to become a significant public interest, but the protection of nature, the landscape and monuments remains in place.
The goal is to balance public interests, not to replace one interest with another. If there is a way to adjust a project through conditions while also protecting the values of the area, a solution should be sought instead of automatic rejection.
This is not a weakening of public interests, but a change in the procedural regime. Many public interests are to be assessed in an integrated way within a single procedure. In some sensitive areas — for example monuments or specially protected areas — special regimes remain.
The authorities concerned are to raise their requirements on time, proportionately and clearly. The goal is for public interests to be protected effectively, not repeatedly and unpredictably.
Corruption risk is reduced primarily by transparency, traceability and clear accountability. A fragmented system with many partial steps, paper files and unclear deadlines is not automatically safer.
A more unified process, a digital trail, a clear deadline and an accountable authority can increase oversight. What matters is that it is clear where a file is, who is handling it and why any delay is occurring.
Because a digital system has to work. Experience from past years has shown that unprepared digitalisation can paralyse the whole system instead of helping.
Digitalisation should be a tool for speed and transparency, not another obstacle. That is why the systems need to be prepared, tested and rolled out so that they help officials, builders and municipalities.
Responsible digitalisation is not about launching a system at any cost. It is about launching a functioning tool that genuinely helps people and authorities.
The goal is a modern, stable and tested digital system that reduces paperwork, increases transparency and enables better oversight of the course of proceedings.
Faster and more predictable permitting means more investment, faster construction and lower costs caused by time and uncertainty. This feeds into housing affordability, the development of municipalities and the competitiveness of the whole economy.
Every year of delay means higher costs for builders, municipalities and the state. If the preparation of construction can be shortened, it will save not only private money but also public funds.
The amendment is built on practical experience and on an emphasis on implementation. What is crucial is not only the adoption of the act, but also methodological work, training, ongoing evaluation and support for authorities.
But the current situation already creates serious problems: staffing instability, long deadlines, looping processes and low predictability. The reform is meant to address these risks systemically, not just cosmetically.
Send us your question by e-mail, or contact the regional coordinator for your region directly.
