Content uploaded by Henk Visscher
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Henk Visscher
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
ENHR 2007 International Conference on ‘Sustainable Urban Areas’
Dynamics of building regulations in Europe
Henk Visscher and Frits Meijer
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies
P.O. Box 5030
2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
E-mail:f.m.meijer@tudelft.nl
ABSTRACT
This paper describes the dynamics of European building regulatory systems and places them
within the context of general trends in the regulatory sciences, particularly with reference to
Europeanisation studies. Within the regulatory sciences, there is broad consensus about the
trend towards deregulation and privatisation in recent decades. Studies conducted under the
rubric of ‘Europeanisation’ analyse the effects of European policies on the policy frameworks of
the member states in more detail. Are the systems converging or diverging? Although the
history of this kind of research is short, most authors agree that European policies have had a
profound impact on the policies of the member states, but that this impact has not been
uniform. In this paper, we analyse privatisation and deregulation trends within the building
regulatory systems of eight European countries, and we consider whether the systems appear
to be converging or diverging. We focus on three elements: the scope of the technical
requirements, the building permit procedures and the division of control and inspection
responsibilities. The analyses reveal no evidence that the scope of technical requirements in
European countries is diminishing. Through its directives, the European Union exercises a
convergent influence on the contents, scope and formulation of these technical requirements.
In addition, all member countries are taking steps to streamline their administrative
procedures. The importance of the role played by private organisations in checking and
controlling regulations is increasing across the board. Dynamics in building regulations will be a
topic for our research for the coming years. In 2007 and 2008 we are updating and extending
our data on dynamics of regulatory systems in Europe.
1. INTRODUCTION
The OTB Research Institute has explored and researched the field of building regulatory
systems for many years (e.g., Meijer and Visscher, 1998; Visscher, 2000). Our studies focus on
the content and formulation of requirements, as well as on the methods and procedures that
have been developed to ensure that demands are actually met in practice. Our international
comparative projects analyse the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of various building
regulatory systems. The results of our European comparative research project have been
published in two volumes. The first volume compares the building control systems of eight
European countries (Meijer, Visscher, Sheridan, 2002), and the second addresses technical
requirements (Sheridan, Visscher, Meijer, 2003). For the next years we plan to update and
extend our international comparative research Not only with more European countries but also
with other countries in the Western world (e.g. Australia, Canada and New Zealand).
Although the building regulatory systems of the eight countries we studied thus far differ
widely, their broad outlines share systematic similarities (figure 1). In most countries, technical
requirements are often established in building acts, which provide detailed descriptions of the
2
minimum demands for health, safety, energy efficiency and similar issues. Supplementary to
the technical directives, most countries have official documents to regulate such aspects as
standards, approved solutions and administrative procedures. Such matters as building permit
application systems and responsibility for controlling and site-checking building works are
statutory. The same applies to planning aspects, which are often regulated by national and
local acts containing location-dependent requirements.
Figure 1 Schematic overview of our field of study
Other gover nmental and non-go vernmental publications
RE GULATIONS
Technical
requirements
Planning/zoning
demands
Aesthetics
Standa rds, accepted or equal so lutions , codes of practices, etc.
Other
Aesthetics
ADM INISTR ATIV E PROC EDURE S
Building perm it procedure Categories of construction work s
Co ntrol and inspection
Phas ing of procedure
(Private /public) responsibilitie s
In recent decades, the building regulatory frameworks of many European countries have changed
considerably. This paper considers the extent to which the regulatory systems of various countries
are converging or diverging. We will focus on the aspects that fit within the framework outlined in
Figure 1.
Following this introductory section, we provide a short overview of current discussions and trends
within the regulatory sciences (e.g. that part within the academic tradition of policy analysis that
addresses issues of regulatory convergence/divergence and Europeanisation). Section 3 analyses
developments regarding the scope (and formulation) of technical requirements, and Section 4
examines changes in the various administrative procedures of eight countries. Section 4 also
touches upon the division of responsibilities among public and private parties with regard to the
control and inspection of (technical) building regulations. Section 5 of this paper draws
conclusions concerning the debate between deregulation and privatisation and between
divergence and convergence.
2. DEREGULATION AND EUROPEANISATION
Despite the presence of numerous approaches to the notion of what constitutes regulation, the
distinction between economic and social regulations is generally accepted (e.g., Ogus, 1994;
Den Hertog, 1999).
Economic regulation consists of structural (or ‘access’) regulation and conduct (or ‘behavioural’)
regulation. Structural regulation refers to the process of regulating the market structure, and
conduct regulation refers to the regulation of behaviour within the market. Economic regulation
is exercised primarily within markets that are characterised by monopoly conditions. Social
regulation involves regulation in such areas as the environment (e.g., safety and health),
labour conditions and consumer protection. Social regulation is generally justified by referring
to externalities and information asymmetries.
3
Only a part of the building regulations can be described in terms of economic regulation. For
instance, directives and codes that are established at the European level (e.g., the EC Building
Products Directive and the Euro Codes) are primarily intended to facilitate the barrier-free trade
of building products throughout the member states. Nonetheless, the ‘social aspects’ are the
most important component of building regulations. Building and planning regulations have been
developed to ensure that buildings meet basic quality standards. Safety and health have
traditionally been the core elements of the regulations. In the course of time, most countries
have added other considerations, including amenity/comfort, energy savings and sustainability.
With regard to economic and social regulations, many underlying theories and definitions have
been developed to explain such aspects as the effectiveness of the regulations and their design
and specifications. We do not address these subjects. As stated in the introduction, this paper
focuses on developments within building regulatory systems and on the question of whether
these systems are converging or diverging in Europe. This question is difficult, as regulatory
systems are determined by institutional and national factors within individual countries.
Ogus (2002) makes a number of generalisations, based on information obtained from a survey
of historical and inter-jurisdictional practice. Most importantly, he identifies a global tendency
away from central governmental control, a crucial feature of what has been called the
‘deregulation movement’ (e.g., Francis, 1993). He notes, however, that the extent to which
deregulation has occurred varies by country, due to differences in regulatory culture. Ogus also
observes that government involvement is more prominent in the field of social regulation than
it is in the field of economic regulation. At the same time, he acknowledges the existence of
long traditions of tripartite governance structures and an increasing tendency to work out
regulatory policies through consensus with the industries that are regulated. This paper does
not directly address the influence of the building industry on the formulation of building
regulations.
The European Union (EU) is able to influence the regulatory systems of the member states.
The influence of the EU can be independent of all other international external developments
(e.g., deregulation) that affect national policies. In recent years, the impact of the EU on its
member states has become a topic in studies of the European Union. Researchers are studying
the effects of European integration on the politics, policies and administrative structures of the
member states. The process through which European integration penetrates – and in certain
circumstances, brings about adjustments to – domestic institutions, decision-making
procedures and public policies is analysed under the heading of ‘Europeanisation’.
In a report on the state of affairs, Bulmer and Radaelli (2004) observe that Europeanisation has
had a profound impact on the public policy functions of the member states, but that its impact
has not been uniform. In some policy areas (e.g., monetary policy and trade), member states
have lost much of their scope for independent action. In other areas, however, the impact has
been much more fragmented, as in health care or employment policy. Most policy areas lie
between these two extremes. The intellectual history of Europeanisation is still short, however,
and it is unlikely that a single interpretation will predominate.
The building regulatory field has not yet been a point of scholarly attention. The related set of
environmental regulations has been studied by Liefferink and Jordan (2002) They make
distinctions between the influences of the EU on the content, structure and style of policy in
the member states. Liefferink and Jordan conclude that, while it has influenced some aspects
of the contents of national environmental policies (e.g., the standards, positions and strength
of ministries, parliaments and NGOs), the EU has not managed to change either their
fundamental composition or design. In other words, policy content is more susceptible to
convergence under the influence of the EU than are either policy structure or policy style. In
our concluding section, we offer explanations for developments in the building regulatory field.
3. THE SCOPE OF THE TECHNICAL REGULATIONS
This section focuses on actual developments with regard to the (scope and formulation of)
technical requirements in Europe.
4
The effects of the European Union are quite noticeable in this regard. Changes and
convergence at the European level have been achieved through the EC Construction Products
Directive (CPD) and through the gradual acceptance of Euro Codes in the member states.
Partially because of these developments, technical requirements in more and more European
countries are being phrased in terms of performance requirements.
When they are finished, the Euro Codes will form a set of almost 60 European standards, and
will provide calculation methods to determine the mechanical strength required of each
element in a structure to withstand expected loads. The calculation methods will cover all
construction methods and materials used. The Construction Products Directive (CPD -
89/106/CEE) defines six essential requirements for construction works, which are detailed in
interpretative documents. These essential requirements are mechanical resistance and stability,
safety in case of fire, hygiene, health and environment, safety in use, protection against noise
and energy economy and heat retention.
The essential requirements for construction works serve as a foundation for the harmonised
technical product specifications (i.e., harmonised European standards or European Technical
Approvals) that have been and are being developed for assessing the performance of building
products. The directives from the new approach of the EC in general, and those of the CPD in
particular, introduce a mandatory system for attesting conformity throughout the construction
products sector.
In addition, all EU member states are preparing for the implementation of the European Energy
Performance Building Directive (EPBD), which is the EC draft directive on improving the energy
performance of buildings.
Developments in the various countries show that the content and scope of technical regulations
are converging. Country monographs do not paint a picture of deregulation (Sheridan,
Visscher, Meijer, 2003), however, as they suggest the emergence of more rather than fewer
technical requirements.
In summary, the scope of technical requirements for regulating the minimal quality of buildings
in European countries is not diminishing. There is no question of deregulation in this regard;
the policy of the European Union has had a converging effect, particularly with regard to the
content (scope and formulation) of the technical demands. More and more countries include
performance standards in their technical requirements, which has a converging effect on the
building regulations.
The following sections address developments concerning the procedures and responsibilities for
the inspection and control of technical requirements.
4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
All countries require building permits before construction work can begin. Applicants for
permits must follow procedures that are intended to guarantee that the (technical and other)
demands for construction activities are actually realised in practice. Although the organisation
of building permit procedures varies widely among European countries, some parallel
developments are evident. All countries are attempting to streamline and accelerate their
procedures. This ambition is particularly evident in the categorisation of construction works and
in the phasing of procedures.
4.1 Categories of construction works
As shown in table 1, the various countries have developed different procedures for different
categories of construction work. In general, minor alterations and renovation projects,
extensions, annexes, garden sheds, temporary structures and similar activities are generally
exempted.
During the last decade, European countries have shown a tendency to extend the category of
permit-free construction works (exemptions). For example, half of the German states have
enlarged the category of exemptions substantially in the last ten years. For many routine
applications in Belgium, it has not been necessary to obtain advice from authorised inspectors
since 2000. In the Netherlands, an updated and elaborated list of structures for which no
building permission is required was introduced in 2003.
5
Table 1 Categories of construction works for different procedures.
In addition to exemptions from the full procedure, most countries have a category of
construction works for which the local building-control authority must be notified. An applicant
must provide notice of intended construction work, but there is no (comprehensive) preventive
inspection of the work, and no permit is issued. In almost all cases, building notice
requirements apply to minor construction projects in which location-dependent requirements
play no role.
In the past, England and Wales, France, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have all introduced
building notice procedures for these types of projects. Belgium and the Netherlands have made
a distinction between light and regular permit procedures in 2000 and 2003. In Belgium, the
procedures for certain types of dwellings were simplified. In Germany, a distinction has been
introduced between elementary and regular permit procedures. The elementary procedure
(e.g., for dwellings of limited and moderate height) consists of checking the stability, durability
and fire safety of the constructions.
4.2 Phasing of full permit procedure
Table 2 provides an overview of the wide variation in the organisation of full building-permit
procedures in Europe. Despite the variation, however, the table also reveals a number of
striking (parallel) developments, which are aimed at deregulating administrative procedures.
Table 2 Main features of the building permit procedure.
Pre-consul-
tation
Approval
tech. req.
of design
Start building
Inspection during
Construction
Completion
Belgium voluntary voluntary after permit
is granted
by private
inspection bodies
no
Denmark voluntary yes after permit
is granted
sample checks approval for
use
England &
Wales
voluntary yes after permit
is granted
yes Completion
Certificate
France voluntary voluntary after permit
is granted
by private
inspection bodies
Completion
Certificate
Germany voluntary yes after permit
is granted
yes approval for
use
Netherlands
voluntary yes after permit
is granted
regular inspection
points
No
Norway obligatory inspection
plans
within 4 weeks
of detailed plans
supervision of
inspection plan
completion
certificate
Sweden obligatory inspection
plans
3 weeks after
notice
supervision of
inspection plan
completion
certificate
Most countries provide surgeries where potential applicants can come and discuss their building
plans and where building authorities can inform them of requirements and options. Only
Exemptions
Light procedure Full procedure
Belgium yes, listed light procedure yes (no tech. requirements)
Denmark yes, listed. building notice yes
England &
Wales
yes, listed building notice yes
France yes, listed building notice yes (no tech. requirements)
Germany yes, listed light procedure yes
Netherlands
yes, listed light procedure yes
Norway yes, listed building notice yes (control plan)
Sweden Yes, listed building notice yes (control plan)
6
Norway and Sweden have introduced statutory consultation meetings as a regular part of their
permit procedures. All parties involved (e.g., applicant, architect, contractor) must be
represented at the meeting, in which the building control authority is required to clarify which
particular regulations apply to the location of the planned works. During the meeting, a
decision is made on the method of inspection.
All European countries attempted to use IT applications to enhance the effectiveness and
efficiency of their regular permit procedures. Most countries provide information, regulations,
application forms and similar items that can be downloaded from the Internet. In such an
online inquiry, an applicant can quickly determine whether a building permit is necessary and
which further steps must be taken. Although there is still considerable variation among Internet
developments in European countries, developments in the building regulatory field are
expected to converge quickly. The overall objective of the EU (
e
Europe) is to bring Europe
online as soon as possible. Key documents here are the
e
Europe 2002 and 2005 Action Plans,
which contain several (interlinked) tools for attaining the targets. A list of twenty basic public
services has been compiled, and building permit procedures are included in that list. It is the
aim that full online services for these products will be achieved in the short term. Digitalisation
will undoubtedly have positive effects effect on the speed and costs of the permit procedure
(Meijer, 2005).
Sharpening the phasing of the permit procedure is another common policy goal in Europe.
For a number of years, the English system has made a clear distinction between building and
planning permission. The advantage of this system is that it can reduce the length of the
procedure for a specific building permit (building regulation check).
Since the mid-1990s, Norway and Sweden have divided their full permit procedures into
specific phases. The Norwegian building permit procedure is clearly phased, according to the
allocation of responsibilities for inspection. In the first phase, a permit is issued for the location-
dependent aspects and the broad outline of the building plans. Applicants can subsequently
apply for permits at particular points as the construction work progresses.
Another solution for streamlining and deregulating regulation procedures is to give certain
standard (or frequently built) construction works a separate status in regular permit
procedures. For example, Type Approvals, building permits for the technical aspects of a
design, have been developed in Germany and in England and Wales. Type Approvals are issued
by government agencies and are valid nationally. In the case of construction works that already
have Type Approvals, developers have only to apply for planning permits. England is
formulating ideas for introducing ‘simplified regulations for small (domestic) buildings’. The
basic idea is to introduce Approved Documents for small domestic buildings.
Table 445.2 shows that European countries have opted for a variety of procedures for checking
the completion of construction work. Applicants in England and Wales must apply for inspection
by their local building-control authorities. In Germany, a building may be brought into use only
after the local building-control authority has certified it as safe. French local authorities have
the right to inspect structures within two years of completion; if everything is in order, they
issue a certificate. In Denmark and Norway, a completion certificate is issued once an applicant
has signed a declaration that the structure has been built in accordance with the regulations. In
Sweden, local building-control authorities contract the final inspection out to independent
inspection organisations. In most countries, a building cannot be brought into use until the final
certificate has been issued or the final inspection has taken place.
The overall picture of ‘the’ European permit procedure is one of variety. The design and
execution of administrative procedures in the various countries has a strong national base. In
contrast to technical requirements, a survey of permit procedures reveals little evidence of any
‘Europeanisation effect’, with the possible exception of the online availability of public services.
Nonetheless, some convergence is evident in developments involving the direction of
‘procedural deregulation’. In most countries, various procedural components have been
reduced and streamlined in order to enhance the efficiency and the speed of the procedures.
4.3 Responsibilities for control and inspection
In most European countries (local or regional), authorities have traditionally been responsible
for controlling and checking building plans and for granting permits. Table 3 classifies the
systems of eight countries according to the allocation of responsibility for exercising building
control.
7
Table 3 Responsibility for control
Public responsibility for
control
Private responsibility for
control
Private responsibility for
granting permits
A. Local authority carries out
control (Netherlands,
Denmark, England & Wales)
C. Local authority contracts
out, private organisation is
responsible (Germany)
G. Private organisations are
qualified to issue building
permits (England & Wales)
B. Local authority contracts
out but remains responsible
(Netherlands, Denmark)
D. Legal liability for private
control based on building
regulations (France)
E. Private inspection because
of liability and insurance
requirements (Belgium,
France)
F. Full private responsibility
(Norway, Sweden, Germany)
Three categories are distinguished:
• Public responsibility for building control.
• Private responsibility for building control.
• Private responsibility for granting permits.
The fourth possible category – public responsibility for granting permits – has been omitted, as
this remains the archetype in all European countries.
Paper 447 (Tasks and responsibilities for building control) treats this subject in far more detail.
What we can conclude here is that (with the exception of Denmark), all countries have adopted
changes in recent years in the way they check and control construction works. Responsibility
for control tasks is shifting increasingly towards private parties.
5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
The central questions asked in this paper are as follows: can a trend towards deregulation
(privatisation) in the building regulatory field be observed in Europe, and are the regulatory
systems converging or not? With respect to content and analysis, the paper is consistent with
scientific discussions about regulatory developments in general (deregulation and self-
regulation), and with Europeanization studies in particular.
5.1 Scope of the technical requirements: convergence
All European countries have elaborate sets of technical requirements for regulating the minimal
acceptable quality of construction works. The number of aspects that are subject to regulation
is not diminishing. Nearly every country has adopted new regulations for energy performance
and environmental issues.
Although there is no deregulation trend, developments have suggested convergence in the
area of technical demands. This convergence applies to the subjects of regulation as well as to
the ways in which the requirements are formulated. All EU member states are currently
working to implement the European Energy Performance Building Directive (EPBD). Further
changes and convergence have been achieved through the Construction Products Directive and
through the gradual acceptance of Euro Codes within the member states. In general, technical
requirements are increasingly coming to be phrased in terms of performance. A trend towards
the harmonisation of determination methods (computation rules) in the form of Euro Codes
follows in the wake of this development. The CPD technical specifications are expected to be a
driving tool in the shift towards performance-based works specifications and regulations
throughout much of Europe. This will undoubtedly lead to the eventual further convergence of
the technical requirements and standards within the EU. The technical requirements of course
only form a part of a building regulatory system. Other developments in the building regulatory
field of the various European countries show an overall picture of considerable variety.
5.2 Building permit procedures: deregulation and convergence
Administrative procedures in Europe vary widely. Although building permit procedures are
determined at the national level, developments indicate a trend towards convergence across
the Europe member states. This trend is best described as ‘procedural (or administrative)
8
deregulation’. Within these countries, the category of construction works that require building
permits is diminishing. Authorities are trying to improve both the effectiveness and the
efficiency of their procedures through such initiatives as making a procedural distinction
between simple and regular procedures. Actions being taken to streamline regular procedures
even further include introducing online facilities for acquiring information and applying for
permits, allowing exceptions for certain frequent construction works (i.e., Type Approval) and
dividing the regular procedure into phases. With the possible exception of the digitalisation of
the procedure, the influence of the European Union on these developments is negligible.
Almost all European countries once had ‘traditional’ control systems, in which local authority
building control played a key role. Such systems have undergone major changes, and the role
of private organisations in the permit procedure has expanded the last decades.
We expect that the introduction and implementation of the Energy Performance Building
Directive (EPBD) throughout Europe will further enhance the importance of the role of private
parties. On a reasonably large scale, buildings must be inspected to determine their energy
performance. The (building control) authorities in many European countries are insufficiently
equipped to offer the necessary inspection capacity. We foresee that private inspectors will
supply the ‘inspection need’.
5.3 And in the near future?
In recent decades, the historical differences between the building control systems in the
various European countries have gradually been fading away, not only because of
developments in regulations at the level of the European Union, but also because of such
international trends as deregulation and the privatisation of technical building control.
We expect that technical requirements and the way they are formulated are particularly likely
to converge further in the years to come. The European Building Products Directive provides a
solid foundation on which to base further developments in building requirements. Issuing the
Euro Codes and implementing them in the member states will be yet another step forward.
Developing and implementing the performance approach, also within sets of building
regulations, will create the right conditions for a more uniform formulation of technical
requirements for buildings. Although the realisation of a set of technical requirements and
standards that are essentially uniform across European will take some time, there is clear
evidence of harmonisation. Such a transparent system will yield advantages in many areas. For
builders, manufactures, architects and other parties involved in the building industry, a system
of uniform requirements will facilitate the barrier-free trade of products and services. The
owners, users and visitors of newly constructed buildings will be certain that the basic demands
for (constructional and fire) safety, health, energy efficiency and other concerns are being met.
Whether the current differences among the European countries in the field of administrative
and building permit procedures will disappear completely is questionable. The international
trend towards reducing government responsibility for building quality will probably decrease the
number of areas that are covered by building regulations and will encourage governments to
shift the responsibility for building control (scrutiny of permit applications and site inspection)
to the private sector. This trend is also supported by the development of methods for quality
assurance (certification and accreditation) and their increasing implementation in design,
engineering and construction companies. We expect that these trends and conditions will
certainly influence the national systems of building control, but will not lead to a removal of the
historical background differences that created the current diversity.
6. REFERENCES
Bulmer S.J. & C. M. Radaelli, 2004,
The Europeanization of National Policy?
(Queen’s Papers on
Europeanization, no. 1/2004).
Francis, J., 1993,
The politics of regulation; a comparative perspective
, Oxford.
Hertog, J. den, 1999,
General theories of regulation
, Economic Institute/ CLAV, Utrecht
University (websource: encyclo.findlaw.com/5000book.pdf
).
Liefferink D. & A. Jordan, 2002,
An ‘Ever Closer Union’ of National Policy? The Convergence of
National Environmental Policy in the European Union
(Queens papers on Europeanization, no.
10/2002).
Meijer, 2005,
Online building permit procedures; the Netherlands in a European perspective
, in:
Rethinking and revitalizing construction safety, health, environment and quality (editors Theo
Haupt and John Smallwood), Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
9
Meijer, F. and H. Visscher, 1998,
The deregulation of building controls: a comparison of Dutch
and other European systems
, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design
,
25, pp.
617-629, Pion, London.
Meijer, F, H. Visscher and L. Sheridan, 2002,
Building regulations in Europe, part 1: A comparison
of the systems of building control in eight European countries
, Delft University Press, Delft.
Ogus, A. 1994,
Regulation: Legal Form and Economic Theory
, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ogus, A. 2002,
Comparing regulatory systems: institutions, processes and legal forms in
industrialised countries
, Working paper no. 35; University of Manchester.
Sheridan L, H. Visscher and F. Meijer, 2003,
Building regulations in Europe, part 2: A comparison
of the technical requirements in eight European countries
, Delft University Press, Delft.
Visscher, H.J. 2000,
Building control and quality assurance: an exploration of alternatives to
technical inspection by local building departments
(Bouwtoezicht en kwaliteitszorg. Een
verkenning van alternatieven voor de technische controles door het gemeentelijk
bouwtoezicht); dissertation, Delft University Press, Delft, Netherlands.
