Building Permits for Major Development Projects 2026

Which projects will fall under the new regime: a close reading of the 10,000 m² threshold

According to Parliamentary Print 67, a building for mass housing is defined as a building or a set of buildings with a predominant residential function and a total floor area of 10,000 m² or more. Every word of this definition has practical consequences for a developer. ‘A set of buildings’ means that even a project divided into several smaller buildings or phases can exceed the threshold—so, a deliberate division of a project to stay below the limit may not hold up.

‘Predominant residential function’ means that a mixed-use project with a majority of retail or office space will not fall under this regime, even if the residential part itself exceeds 10,000 m². And ‘total floor area’ is calculated for the entire project, not just for the residential function.

For projects near the threshold, the volume study thus becomes a legal document: a difference of a few hundred square metres will decide whether the project is permitted by the local building authority under the standard regime, or by the central authority under the designated construction regime. Both options have their advantages—and the choice can, in justified cases, be a legitimate subject of design optimisation. We summarise the broader context of the reform, including the timeline for the new system of authorities, in our main article Accelerated Permitting for Development Projects: What the Amendment to the Building Act Brings.

A single procedure at a central authority—and why it's more than just a change of address

Designated constructions are currently permitted under the Building Act (Act No. 283/2021 Coll.) by the specialised Transport and Energy Building Authority—this includes motorways, railways, and energy infrastructure. The amendment transfers this model to large residential projects: they are to be permitted by the new Office for Territorial Development in a single procedure that consolidates the agenda of the previously involved authorities.

For a developer, this means three practical shifts: a specialised authority with a unified methodology instead of 638 local practices, an end to dependence on relationships with a specific municipal council (and the associated systemic bias)—and a single counterparty instead of dozens.

The biggest time saver: the appeal phase is eliminated

For standard constructions, the amendment will end lengthy appeal processes, and the superior authority will have to issue a final decision. For designated constructions, however, the approved text goes further: an administrative appeal (rozklad) against the central authority's decision is not permissible. The procedure is effectively single-instance—a phase that currently often adds a year or more to large projects will disappear from the process entirely. The only way to challenge a permit (or its refusal) is through an administrative action (judicial review), for which the Building Act sets a one-month deadline from the notification of the decision—a deviation from the general two-month deadline under the Code of Administrative Justice (Act No. 150/2002 Coll.).

However, the single-instance nature is a double-edged sword. An error by the authority, which can currently be corrected cheaply and quickly on appeal, will now only be resolvable in court—and the same applies to an error in the developer's application documents that the authority incorporates into its decision. The quality of the application and documentation at the outset will therefore not just be a matter of speed for designated constructions, but a matter of the legal certainty of the outcome itself.

Second saver: binding opinions under control and the zoning plan as a settled issue

Under the approved text, the number of binding opinions is significantly reduced, and the remaining ones are given firm rules: the review of an opinion by a superior body is capped at 30 days, and if this deadline passes without action, a fiction of approval applies. At the same time, the building authority is not to consider parts of statements where the relevant body exceeds its competence or reopens issues already resolved in the zoning plan documentation—furthermore, in developable areas, there is a rebuttable presumption that a project consistent with the zoning plan is permissible. The environmental agenda is concentrated in the EIA process under Act No. 100/2001 Coll., which will now be able to integrate other opinions at the developer's request.

Important news for projects already in progress: according to the transitional provisions, opinions and decisions of the relevant authorities issued before the new authorities are established will retain their legal effect, and if the developer submits them, the authority will not reassess the public interests protected by them.

Third saver: objections and judicial review with tighter limits

Participants' objections will have to be justified and specific—the participant must state the extent to which their rights are affected, otherwise the objection will be disregarded. Blanket disagreements without legal basis will therefore not delay the procedure. In the subsequent judicial review, the court is to assess the points of action only to the extent of the alleged direct infringement of the plaintiff's rights and, new, also to weigh the consequences: even a well-founded action should not lead to the annulment of the permit if the annulment would cause disproportionately greater harm to other persons or the public interest than the dismissal of the action would cause to the plaintiff.

Together with the existing option for the court to directly amend the contested decision, this is a significant shift towards the stability of a once-issued permit. However, these provisions are also the most sharply criticised part of the amendment—environmental organisations, some municipalities, and the Public Defender of Rights have warned in their comments about the weakening of judicial protection for neighbours and the public.

If the Senate does not change the text, a motion to repeal these provisions before the Constitutional Court can be expected. A prudent development strategy therefore works with the advantages of the new review process but does not build on them—a permit that can withstand even a standard review is the only truly safe investment.

What to do with your project right now

Three steps are worthwhile regardless of the outcome of the debate in the Senate. Have a legal assessment conducted to determine whether and which projects in your portfolio will fall under the designated construction regime—including borderline cases and phasing, where every word of the definition matters.

Map the timing of your applications against the reform's timeline and transitional provisions, so that the choice of regime is a conscious decision, not an accident. And review your work-in-progress documentation from the perspective of a joint, single-instance procedure, where defects can no longer be corrected along the way—and each one will go straight to court.

We deal with these issues in our construction law practice every day. Want to know which regime your project will fall under and what it will do to your schedule? Email us the basic parameters of your project at consultation@arws.cz—within a few days, you will receive a specific answer, including recommendations on timing.