Turf wants to delete 150 building rules: ‘Each rule has its own fan club, of course they come to the gun’

The advisory group cancel conflicting and superfluous requirements and regulations, or tough. Chairman Friso de Zeeuw (73) was never very happy with the abbreviation, but is completely behind the goal: an attempt to prune in the many construction and development rules that delay housing. The highest goal: to build homes faster, more and cheaper.

De Zeeuw is emeritus professor of area development at TU Delft and has been working in spatial planning for 45 years. He once started as a lawyer at an urban development agency. He was an alderman in the then municipality of Monnickendam on behalf of the PvdA and then deputy. He was also in the management at BPD, the largest area developer in the Netherlands. De Zeeuw has now exchanged his PvdA membership for that of the VVD.

Opponents of expansion locations he called ‘Stadkabouters’

In his field, De Zeeuw is a man of controversy. In columns, he has been a proponent of large -scale and ‘outdoor city’ for years – and sometimes does not shy away from the personal attack. He called ‘Stadkabouters’ opponents of expansion locations. He put the real estate lawyers away as the ‘tendering stable’. Jan Rotmans (‘High Priest van de Kantelkerk’) and almost every government architect (‘No understanding of the housing market’) also had to suffer in recent decades.

The fact that he is not afraid to be on toes will have “may have helped a bit” at his appointment, De Zeeuw chuckles. His client, outgoing minister Mona Keijzer (Volkshuisvesting, BBB) found a kindred spirit in De Zeeuw. Under her, for example, the important policy vision ‘water and soil controlling’ was already weakened, which gives water safety and water storage over the designation of construction locations. Residential builders under Keijzer was also allowed to deviate from the strict building rules on small points. Another important proposal that Keijzer takes over is to remove the ladder for sustainable urbanization, which forces municipalities to build as much as possible within built -up areas.

The proposals in the tough advice report are about a wide range of topics. From building requirements, housing for water and companies, rules for moving land, parking, prosperity, standards for smell and sound, to how to deal with flora and fauna. The advisory group formulated roughly 150 lines and regulations that can be deleted, simplified or similarly.

They are sometimes very specific. Lower ceiling heights in new -build homes, for example, or letting go of the mandatory ‘lazy’ stairs that go up less steeply and therefore take up more space. Sometimes also very pragmatic, for example when building near water (add ‘no, unless’ and ‘yes if’ in decision -making together to ‘yes’).

If you take over everything in this, you can reduce the preparatory phase of large construction projects from seven years to three and a half

Although many critics of Stoer like to see the regulatory burden, they are not behind the approach of the Zeeuw and his advisory group. Municipalities, water boards, architects and the sustainability lobby, among others, expressed criticism. By pruning Rücksichtslos in regulations, the sustainability policy, the build quality and the quality of life of future residential areas are in danger in the longer term, it is feared.

Right to the Million Dollar Question: How many faster houses built will deliver tough?

“It is about the total process time, from initiative to delivery of the home. We think that if you take over everything in it, you can reduce the total preparatory phase of larger construction projects from seven years to three and a half. And that objections and frame procedures can be shortened by two years. Then you have won a lot of time.

That sounds very decisive …

“And that is also necessary. For example, with the VNG, they have been arguing for a long time for the great simplification – the return of bureaucracy. Yes, okay. But if you do not start very pragmatically, by working out at the level of individual rules, then of course nothing will be on. built. ”

… but how do you prevent municipalities and provinces from placing additional requirements on top of the existing rules?

“You just have to say that: that is really no longer possible, we will not do that. Then a home will soon cost 20,000 to 30,000 euros extra. And if there is a discussion about it, the minister said that, then she will make the knot through.

As a reader, your report is a bit of a swallow: it starts with twelve sides of rules that you think can be deleted, relaxed or similarly. Is this written down in this way?

“Let me put it this way: we have considered the first part to fall into, but the mood at our advisory committee was straightforward: it is about the accumulation of all these rules, so we leave it that way. You can see that in the title. No nice rhyme this time, but just what we stand for: faster, more, cheaper.”

Those rules that you want to delete. They are not for nothing?

“I often call that the drama of good intentions. Behind each line is a motif, a motive or a cause. That can be sustainability, safety or comfort. But that does not mean that you can never look at it critically again.

“Well, and we do that. And we don’t deny all those interests either, we only look at those rules and consider a little more in the light of building and living. Whether it can sometimes be a few less. For people with a beautiful home it is easy to talk about the theme ‘health’ in new construction. But the health consequences of young people who are without a home, who are still living at home and any family will become any family forming that will be their development and possible family. brought.”

Critics, also from construction, state that the real housing construction problems such as Netcongestie, land prices and staff shortages are not resolved with lower ceilings or the removal of ‘lazy’ stairs. How do you listen to that criticism?

“We don’t solve the nitrogen problem with one big measure, no, but I think we’ll be a long way. We say: if you have that calculation limit of 1 mole [een plan van landbouwminister Wiersma] Can enter and that is legally sustainable, that would help the construction enormously. Although you have to prospect a strong nitrogen reduction.

Zoom in

“We also make proposals for land prices and netcong by ours – although we are not all about separate measures, but about how people pick it up, because people are more important than rules. It would be good if there were a change in mentality and consultancy firms. More feeling of urgency for housing.

“And the criticism, well. He differed in pitch, but was in accordance with expectations. Each rule has its own ambassador and his own fan club, and of course they come to the gun in an advisory report like this. I think it would not have been good advice if that criticism had not sounded.”

But what do you think does a lower ceiling do?

“With other relaxations that saves 10,000 euros per home, without VAT. In that package there is, among other things, that steeper staircase and that ceiling height, but also by allowing less light to reduce heat stress. And that 10,000 euros is really not for every home and is also not from today on tomorrow. But for the construction of social rental properties.

This is not the first advisory group that must reduce the number of rules. How do you know for sure that this time something will happen to the advice?

“True. In the past twenty years, there has been the term ‘Reducing Regulatory Pressure’ in every coalition agreement. The big difference is that there is now also the political will to really do something about it. There is now a minister who makes more work than her predecessors, who mostly devoted words to it. In addition, there is a very broad social awareness of the home demand.” ”

You could also say: by focusing on a reduction in the control, no more political choices are made about really large things such as nitrogen, networking and use of space.

“If you look at it like that, you immediately offer politics an escape route to not follow this advice. Then the better the enemy of the good and if nothing happens again. That there are larger political issues do not mean that you cannot and should change that regulatory pressure. There are always big political questions, but now it is just as: reduces the regulatory pressure.”

To share





Mail the editors