- Recently the Cabinet introduced to the Verkhovna Rada a draft law "On regulation of urban development, and Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Tigipko called it revolutionary. So whether this bill is revolutionary, as it represent?
Related article: Initiatives to «affordable housing» - is just piaraktsii- I would say that this bill - a natural consequence of several years of trying to hear intelligent people who have experience in construction and who have an understanding of how the licensing system in the building in an urban area and elsewhere in the world. Anyway, this state was concerned.
Until recently it was a Town Planning Code, but he, like most Ukrainian codes, unfortunately, those are essentially was not. This was simply an attempt to topple into a single document all the laws that one way or another, regulate the construction and urban development. No innovation was not there.
In the latter, "Mirror of the Week" was an article about the other code, tax: "Thank you, that is almost as good ... But where is the tax reform?". And planning codes, which until recently was in one way or another version of the committee BP, just the same case: maybe no worse than it was, but no reform there. If the bill on the regulation of urban development will be adopted even in this form, as it is made, we need the Town Planning Code in his understanding, which put the previous developers, will disappear.
- What is it fundamentally new?
- This is probably the first systematic attempt to understand that non-system development of the area - it's bad. And to control this development is impossible if there is no single planning documentation. The Act is divided into large blocks, each of which defines a strategy for reforming some related industries.
If we talk about planning documentation, it is certainly the basis for urban planning - is the presence of master plans at least localities. Developers remembered such a thing as zoning (documentation, defining the conditions or restrictions on the use of a territory for urban purposes - BRIDGE-Kharkov ").
Determined that the areas for which no a master plan at all, in principle, to engage in investment activity is not necessary because it would not be correct and systematic. There is also an apparent revolutionary innovation concerning the fact that councils should not deal with land allocation, and their executive bodies.
- But few remember that once and it was ...
- Yes, once it was, there is nothing revolutionary in this.
- Same Tigipko, speaking of the revolutionary project, talks about reducing the number of licensing procedures from 93 to 23, and that the deadline for receipt of all necessary permits reduced from 415 to 60 days.
- Well, this is a controversial thing ... From a formal point of view - yes, there will be less, but as will be the case? .. The executive bodies always, in all areas, and this is no exception, are doing everything possible to maximum power reserve. And the consequence of a new order of admission to operation was a simple harmonization of local government. And then the local authorities have come up with a procedure of matching a number of procedures that the number of signatures has become only more and better in fact, nobody died. But someone put a tick that had 20 signatures, but now the only one! Therefore, the number of actions - is a controversial thing.
Here is an outdoor public city planning, and inventory, which provides for a bill - is, in my view, really to face revolutionary.
Now, when you want to build up some sort of plot, I tell you: Develop, please, urban planning study. This is such a low level of planning documentation, which attempted to compensate for the absence of higher levels.
That is, when there is no detailed plans for the territories, there is no master plans, no zoninga and build something needs to be, we must take this plot, draw and once to describe the object that you build. And, in principle, still want to have you as a developer, it was still an understanding that should happen around. So, about that around, was and remains closed.
In 2004, we have not yet even being in any association, going two or three times with colleagues and wrote Vladimir Shumilkin, Mayor of Kharkiv, writing about what it would be nice to oblige the agency planning and architecture in the design to give you raw data that the neighborhood - which objects are planned, what altitude, what purpose, etc. And now, finally, come to this.
It's really a revolution, because if it is town-planning cadastre, the city will be at a glance: you can go to any open-source and see what it can do, or what it can do, or that there is already someone doing it . The law so provides. The question is how will it be implemented. How much money will be allocated to it? Who? As far as this person is competent?
- And how much it might cost?
- I can not even imagine. To begin with - the development of quality software. It's probably some hundreds of thousands UAH - probably. And then? This same database will need to fill, and it rested in the fact that, somewhere not have a scanner, somewhere there is no e-mail, but somewhere there is no PC ...
Therefore, there is a risk that it will not be done for the year as the bill provides. True, the Georgians have done it quickly enough, but they and smaller countries. Perhaps we should begin at least in big cities do it: Kiev, Kharkov, Donetsk, Lviv.
- For the basis the Georgian model?
- I would not say so. Georgians also has his own law is not sucked from the finger, and also studied the experience of American, European. In this project, to some extent reflected the aspirations in the field of urban planning and an understanding of how it should be. But from my point of view, he still nedorevolyutsionen.
- First, there are a lot of links to central authorities in the field of urban planning and architecture, I mean the current Minregionstroy. That is, the farther the Ministry should adopt a whole slew of decisions to develop a whole slew of regulations and decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers. This is the biggest problem: on the stage by-laws are often radically twisted happens all the ideas laid down by law. So anything that can be described by the law, it is better to describe the law than by Cabinet.
The same rule to begin construction in a declarative manner, if we are talking about buildings first to third category. On the one hand - this is a tremendous step forward, on the other - the question, what would be the first and third, and that - in the fourth fifth. From this very much will depend.
Today's category is contained in state building codes, there is so much nonsense - it's just amazing! For example, an office and administrative center - is the third category, and business center - is the fifth. Why??
- And how you can take the law if it is recorded that the beginning of construction of buildings first to the third category - in declarative principle ...
- Then there will be war, because of which category!
- ... And it turns out that the first-third categories is not something that they had in mind when you voted for the law?
- And we do not know what they meant, that's the thing! Therefore, from my point of view, the categorization should be enshrined in law, the law should contain an exhaustive list of criteria. Lest there be, as the list in the order of the Cabinet for Environmental Assessment, there are listed many items, but in the end it says "as well as other objects at the discretion of the local authority environmental security." And these other places is all anything. So it is here.
Should be very clear list. It is time. And two. Nedorevolyutsionnost project is precisely in the fact that if they "went to a spree, it is necessary to cut the last cucumber. I believe (and it's not just my opinion but the opinion of many colleagues, and the same inspection of state-of the architectural control), which is a declarative principle of the start of construction could be generally extended to all sites. It will not make anyone worse, but it would deprive the developer having to go through a whole slew of complicated procedures and draw up a bunch of papers.
If I - a law-abiding property developer, and I know that I was to start building, you must have a project that complies with the rules and regulations, I will first develop the project, and then I'll build! Should be a draft, signed an architect and civil engineer, who must be members of the Chamber of architects and engineers, and this is the one and only guarantee that I - a normal developer.
And the fact that now many construction projects taking place without the project, since it depends only on personal ties and all. So let's put all on an equal footing! Do not have any expertise! If some body have a feeling that it is necessary to conduct any examination of this project, first of all, this should be interested customer.
Because the customer - is the next link, which is responsible for translating, for compliance with project outcomes. And in this - too nedorevolyutsionnost: No such expertise anywhere in the world in general! There is a special examination for special objects, who are appointed special solutions, as a rule, customers themselves, or municipalities, or government. This is a worldwide practice.
It is unlikely that an object that can represent a particular danger, such as nuclear power plant, will build a private client. And if building the state and on the budget, then perhaps it may order the examination of himself. Therefore, maybe it should be left to some function of state examination, but limit it to only those objects which involve cost money.
No, all sorts of policies, the same MP Orobets, act that abolished the environmental and sanitary inspection, and will now build the factories, cutting down forests, parks and everything! Yes, this is nonsense, because the principle of declarative and lack of expertise is not exempt from the laws. If the law says that in the recreation building is impossible, it can not be built regardless of the environmental assessment is needed or not. And if you start to build there a declarative way, then you should be arrested and imprisoned, but did not write the law just nonsense!
- But how to control that for the construction of no value for those who do not know how to build it? That then all is not valilos and people were dying?
- It is my deep conviction that there can be a civilized market, if not there will be self-governing institutions in the construction. Following the draft law "On state regulation of activities" from the depths of Minregionstroya out a bill on AMC - self-regulatory organizations. I do not like this term because he is from my point of view, is fundamentally wrong. Self-regulatory organizations - is when we need something from inside themselves to adjust, and we regulate. A professional self-government implies that there is occupation, there are members of the profession, and they create a regulatory mechanism within the profession - once, and the mechanism of the relationship with adjacent sectors - two.
On this we wrote in a review of the bill on SRO. The fact that there was no talk of that building who are horrible, an urgent need to introduce the concept of professional self-government. Introduced with the participation of Minregionstroya practice individual certification of architects and engineers can and should become the basis for the creation of a single Chamber of Architects and the Chamber of Civil Engineers with the maximum number of delegated state powers in controlling the activities of the industry and a clear division of authority between the government and professional organizations Ministry.
In this very important principle of mandatory participation of architects and engineers in the regional offices of the Chamber of Architects and the Chamber of Engineers and the admission to the conduct of business enterprises that meet the clear and exhaustive list of requirements related primarily to personal professional liability of experts from the Chamber attracted to such enterprises on the basis of labor laws. The same House shall keep a register of economic entities.
That is, I as a director responsible for financial and economic activities, and for professional activities, the quality of work must still be responsible and professional. And what he will be responsible? Freedom and the opportunity to continue their professional activities. Because if something suddenly happens and it is proved that it was his fault or negligence, then he should lose the right to engage in professional activities, it should be deleted from the registry - that's all.
Now, as for the examination. Today, expert features are different ministries such as MOH, MOE, Energy Saving Committee, Ministry of Environment, - everyone has the experts, they all want ekspertirovat. During that receive money: formal, informal - whatever. But the responsibility does not bear any one!
If something happened, and I'm an architect, I'm supposed to blame, because I was supposed to be designed in accordance with the rules and regulations and put his signature. Under each drawing sheet has a signature and the signature architect design engineer. And if something is wrong - not their responsibility, because it was still the same examination. The experts did not say that I'm wrong, that there may have been counted at all something to alter. It turns out, experts blame? And they say: may the contractor is to blame? Who are the judges? But when there is a professional self-government - that they and the judge.
I, as a customer should have the right to hire an independent expert, a licensed professional self-organization, and get his opinion. If he wants to, God forbid, keep this advice to someone scores, he runs the risk that the expert opinion will be the subject of another review, and then - the court.
Because the organization of professional self still exist and the courts. For example, in Germany, all cases related to the construction by the courts of general jurisdiction, in which one of the judges necessarily represent an organization of professional self-government in urban planning or architecture. This is such a complex, but very logical system
We kind of like going through the same way, but we go originally: Now let's certificate Nada, and professional self-government - then, maybe, someday ... But we must understand if there is no self, then the penny price will be for all the certificates and responsibility. But about the professional self is said exactly two words in the bill. Therefore, another document that will regulate the market is the law of self-government in the construction.
- Besides, what else is missing to this law, that it's wrong?
- We believe that the period of construction no rent should not be. If I give the land for construction - is not hire, I can not return the land to its original form. Why do we close our eyes and call it a lease? This contradicts the nature of the concept of "rent."
If the land belongs to the municipality, there superficies - an excellent procedure that was invented by the ancestors and recorded in a special chapter of the Land Code, consisting, unfortunately, because of one article. From my point of view, could and should have been recorded in the Act - order of transfer of land: superficies for the construction period, and then - or long-term lease or purchase sites, if appropriate.
- Tigipko said that if the law is adopted in this form, the residential real estate will become cheaper by 20-30%. This figure is real?
- I think not. After all, we are talking about? We're actually talking about bribes associated with obtaining a building permit. But I do not think that here the main dog fumbled. Dog rummaged in the other. As long as these procedures are as they are, almost impossible, as a developer, to get money from the bank because the bank does not understand how he control the process.
There is a worldwide practice - SPV (special purpose vehicle - "project company" created to implement a project or for a specific purpose - BRIDGE-Kharkov), ie, creates a zero company that gets the right to development of a territory, then corporate rights of the company, its own balance sheet.