Building Permits for Major Development Projects 2026
How the Amendment Will Accelerate Construction Permitting
If you're planning a residential project over 10,000 m², the new building law amendment speeds up permitting into one procedure before a central authority – but removes your right to appeal, leaving only a court action as your defence. The Chamber of Deputies confirmed the amendment by overriding the Senate veto and the President signed it on 17 September 2026; only promulgation in the Collection of Laws remains. ARROWS lawyers explain in the article what to check right now.
The essentials in six points:
- A building or complex of buildings with a predominantly residential function and a total floor area of 10,000 m² or more will now fall under the designated construction regime. The term “complex of buildings” is key—even a phased project consisting of smaller buildings may exceed this threshold.
- Such a project will be approved by a central government agency in a single proceeding—rather than by the locally competent building authority and dozens of binding opinions. Moreover, the construction of designated structures is, by law, in the public interest.
- No appeal may be filed against a decision regarding a designated construction project—the entire appeals process, which currently takes months or even years for large projects, is eliminated. The only recourse remaining is an administrative lawsuit, which must be filed within one month.
- Binding opinions are being streamlined and standardized—the review of an opinion is subject to a 30-day deadline, after which it is deemed approved; the agency will not consider portions of the opinion that exceed its jurisdiction; and issues resolved by the zoning plan will not be reopened during the proceedings.
- Judicial review is being narrowed—the court is to assess the grounds for the complaint only to the extent that they directly infringe upon the plaintiff’s rights, and, when revoking a permit, to weigh the plaintiff’s harm against the developer’s harm and the public interest.
- The amendment has been approved and signed, but as of 7 October 2026 it had not been promulgated in the Collection of Laws. The provisions on designated structures and restrictions on review are among those likely to face a constitutional challenge, so base your strategy on both scenarios.
Do you need assistance with permitting your development project?
Which projects will fall under the new regime: read the 10,000 m² threshold carefully
According to Chamber of Deputies Document 67, a residential housing development 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 implications for developers. "Set of buildings" means that even a project divided into several smaller buildings or phases can exceed the threshold — thus, purposely splitting a project to stay below the threshold 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 the regime, even if the residential portion itself exceeds 10,000 m². And the "total floor area" is calculated for the entire project, not just the residential function.
For projects near the threshold, the volume study thus becomes a legal document: a difference of a few hundred square meters will decide whether the project is approved by the local building authority under the standard regime, or by the central authority under the reserved building regime. Both options have their advantages — and the choice can, in justified cases, be a legitimate subject of design optimization. We summarize the broader context of the reform, including the timeline of the new system of authorities, in the main article Accelerated Permitting of Development Projects: The Amendment to the Building Act is Signed.
A single procedure at the central authority — and why it is not just a change of address
Under the Building Act (Act No. 283/2021 Coll.), reserved buildings are currently approved by the specialized Transport and Energy Building Authority — these include motorways, railways, or energy infrastructure. The amendment transfers this model to large residential projects: they are to be approved by the new Spatial Development Authority in a single procedure that concentrates the agenda of the previously concerned authorities.
For a developer, this means three practical shifts: a specialized authority with a unified methodology instead of 638 local practices, an end to dependence on relations with a specific town hall (and the associated systemic bias) — and a single counterparty instead of dozens. How exactly the joint procedure will take place step-by-step is analyzed in the article One Stamp for Large Development Projects: How It Will Work in Practice.
The biggest time saving: the appeal phase is eliminated
For standard buildings, the amendment will end lengthy appeal processes, and the superior authority will have to decide with finality. For reserved buildings, however, the approved wording goes further: no administrative appeal (rozklad) is admissible against the decision of the central authority. The procedure is effectively single-instance — a phase that currently adds a year or more to large projects will completely disappear from the process. The only way to challenge an approval (as well as a rejection) remains an administrative lawsuit, for which the Building Act sets a deadline of one month from the notification of the decision — deviating from the general two-month deadline under the Code of Administrative Justice (Act No. 150/2002 Coll.).
However, a single-instance process 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 through court — and the same applies to an error in the developer's supporting documents that the authority adopts into its decision. The quality of the application and documentation at the input stage will therefore not only be a matter of speed for reserved buildings, but directly of the legal certainty of the outcome.
Do you need assistance with permitting your development project?
We will get back to you within 24 hours.
Second saving: binding opinions under control and the zoning plan as a resolved issue
According to the approved wording, the number of binding opinions is significantly reduced and the remaining ones are given strict rules: the review of an opinion by a superior body is capped at 30 days, and if the deadline expires without action, a fiction of confirmation occurs. At the same time, the building authority is not to take into account those parts of an opinion where the concerned authority exceeds its competence or reopens questions that have already been resolved in the zoning documentation — furthermore, in buildable areas, a rebuttable presumption of admissibility applies to projects compliant with the zoning plan. The environmental agenda is concentrated into the EIA process under Act No. 100/2001 Coll., which can, at the developer's request, integrate other opinions as well.
Important news for ongoing projects: according to the transitional provisions, opinions and decisions of concerned authorities issued before the establishment of the new authorities will retain their legal effects, and if the developer submits them, the authority will not re-assess the public interests protected by them.
Third saving: objections and judicial review with narrower boundaries
Objections from participants will have to be reasoned and specific — the participant must state the extent to which their rights are affected, otherwise the objection will not be considered. Blanket disagreement without support in legal regulations will therefore not delay the procedure. In the subsequent judicial review, the court is to assess the grounds of the lawsuit only to the extent of the alleged direct infringement of the plaintiff's rights, and newly also balance interests: even a justified lawsuit should not lead to the cancellation of the permit if the cancellation would cause disproportionately greater harm to other persons or the public interest than the rejection of the lawsuit would cause to the plaintiff.
Together with the court's existing option to directly amend the challenged decision, this is a significant shift towards the stability of a permit once issued. However, these provisions are also the most fiercely criticized part of the amendment — environmental organizations, some municipalities, and the Public Defender of Rights warned in their comments against weakening the legal protection of neighbors and the public.
A constitutional complaint against the amendment has been announced, and it is expected to target precisely these provisions. A sensible developer strategy therefore works with the advantages of the new review process but does not rely on them — a permit that stands up even under standard review is the only truly safe investment.
Mechanism | How it works and what it means for the developer |
|---|---|
Reserved building regime (from 10,000 m²) | The procedure is led by the central Spatial Development Authority and the building is assessed as a project in the public interest. The developer gains a unified procedure instead of varying local practices, but it is necessary to correctly assess whether the project falls under this regime as early as the preparation phase. |
Exclusion of administrative appeal (rozklad) | No administrative appeal can be filed against a decision on a reserved building. This shortens the procedure by months to years, but at the same time, any error can lead directly to judicial review, increasing the importance of high-quality project documentation. |
End of appeal "ping-pong" (other buildings) | The appellate authority must decide the matter itself and cannot return it for a new hearing. The procedure thus gains a predictable end even for projects that do not qualify as reserved buildings. |
Reduction and discipline of binding opinions | The number of opinions is limited, the review is subject to a time limit, and inactivity can result in a fiction of confirmation. This eliminates a frequent source of hidden delays, and questions already resolved in the zoning plan are not reopened. |
Reasoned objections | Objections without specific reasoning or without stating the affected rights will not be considered. Obstructive or general objections thus lose their ability to delay the procedure. |
Narrower judicial review | The court reviews only specifically raised grounds of the lawsuit and decides within short deadlines. Issued permits are more stable, although some rules may be subject to constitutional review. |
What to do with your project right now
Three steps are worth taking regardless of when the law is promulgated in the Collection of Laws. Have a legal assessment made of whether and which projects from your portfolio will fall under the reserved buildings regime — including borderline cases and phasing, where every word of the definition matters.
Map out the timing of applications against the timeline of the reform and the transitional provisions so that the choice of regime is a conscious decision, not a coincidence. And review the documentation in progress through the lens of a joint single-instance procedure, where defects can no longer be corrected on the fly — and any of them will go straight to court.
We deal with these issues in building practice daily. Do you want to know which regime your project will fall under and what it will do to your schedule? Write to us at consultation@arws.cz with the basic parameters of your project — within a few days you will receive a specific answer, including recommendations on timing.
About the author
Disclaimer:
The information contained in this article is for general informational purposes only and serves as a basic guide to the issue as of 2026. Although we strive for maximum accuracy, laws and their interpretation evolve over time. We are ARROWS Law Firm, a member of the Czech Bar Association (our supervisory authority), and for the maximum security of our clients, we are insured for professional liability with a limit of CZK 350,000,000. To verify the current wording of the regulations and their application to your specific situation, it is necessary to contact ARROWS Law Firm directly (consultation@arws.cz). We are not liable for any damages arising from the independent use of the information in this article without prior individual legal consultation.