The discussion around the controversial urban planning “reform” project No. 5655 has been going on for more than a year. The bill, passed by the Verkhovna Rada, has been awaiting presidential signature since December 2022, facing strong public opposition in Ukraine. The European Union twice called not to support this initiative.
At the same time, the Rada continues to develop the Urban Planning Code, which should holistically systematize construction legislation, notes ZN.ua. The working group is headed by Anna Bondar, a member of the parliamentary Committee on the organization of state power and local self-government from the Servant of the People, chairman of the subcommittee on urban planning, improvement and land relations. One of the few parliamentarians who voted against initiative No. 5655. She also actively advocates for qualitative reform of the urban planning industry.
The movement HONESTLY talked with MP and architect Anna Bondar to find out what should be changed in the Urban Planning Code and at what stage its development is now, what risks the scandalous bill No. 5655 poses for the state, what fate awaits it and what the post-war restoration of Ukraine should be based on in general.
On the problems of urban planning, the regional aspect and the future of destroyed cities:
– Mrs. Anna, what, in your opinion, lies at the heart of such an intense struggle over urban planning reform? What is the main problem of the industry and what does the government really need to change in its approaches in order to introduce fair rules of the game for all participants in the construction market?
– Firstly, we need to harmonize our legislation with the EU. We researched this issue in detail, listened to foreigners, and I realized that we still live in a world of myths and legends. The EU has a construction and regional policy. There is no urban planning policy in the EU. There are principles that are followed. For example, building policies include energy efficiency. Everything is fine here, the law applies. Europeans have a strategic environmental assessment when developing planning documentation. We also have a corresponding law and this requirement has been met.
A separate issue is the processing of construction waste. The EU plans to recycle 70% of construction waste into building materials by 2030. We don’t have any by-laws or laws about this yet. Also, we still have not switched to Eurocodes. We have State Construction Standards (GSN), we have State Standards of Ukraine (DSTU), but there are no codes. This is construction policy.
But. The European Union has a policy of cohesion - cohesion policy - experts from the regional sphere are now writing a lot about this, and it was this policy that was laid down in the Law of Ukraine “On the Fundamentals of State Regional Policy”, amended in the summer of 2022, and the State Regional Strategy until 2027. Which, of course, also needs correction, given the war. But cohesion policy is based on competition. For example, a community needs a bridge, a hospital or an embankment, but there is no money for construction.
You need to apply for an EU grant. The community forms an application and submits it. As a result, communities compete with each other for resources for construction. The winner is the one who has urban planning documentation, a development strategy, a public discussion has been held, a land plot has been allocated, and the local government has the ability to submit an application with a budget, with appropriate deadlines and performers. This encourages you to develop.
Local residents elected a mayor who does nothing and has no money? They choose another. Knowledge and quality of self-government gradually accumulate. All EU communities are now competing for population. Nobody in Europe says that it is necessary to have master plans, but without them there is less chance of development. It was a revelation for me. I expected that the EU website would clearly define what cities should be like, but this is not the case. Live as you want. This really amazed me. We don't think like that yet.
– Because of the full-scale war, cities in Ukraine also began to compete for population?
– Yes, we have cities that compete for population, and mayors do this deliberately. For example, the mayor of Nikolaev Alexander Senkevich. I always use him as an example. He understands that the city may be declining. Therefore, through its activities it attracts people, because people are the basis.
Unfortunately, due to the war, the permanent population in Ukraine may become smaller, so it will become more difficult to develop such a large territory. And it is very heterogeneous - front-line territories, rear areas, occupied areas, and the like. So regional policy is very relevant for us given the restoration of the country. Future recovery must be built on it. Construction here is a key tool, though.
In addition, all foreign experts noted two principles of this work: decentralization and public participation. This will be a movement towards harmonization with the EU. War is a very important challenge, it is complete destruction. Nobody knows how to react to it correctly. We have introduced the development of comprehensive recovery programs. Programs in progress. It is difficult for communities because it is unclear how much of the population to count on, and the situation is constantly changing. Destruction is added, the population migrates, evacuation, return - now it’s all very difficult.
– But after the introduction in the summer of 2022 of the comprehensive restoration programs that you are talking about, there was a duplication of planning documentation. Because at the regional level there are regional strategies and regional recovery plans. Construction, wanting to directly participate in the distribution of money for restoration, entered the territory of regional politics. 5655 later only consolidated this power strategy. Now we have chaos in planning the restoration and development of communities.
- Yes, this problem exists. The committee has a separate working group, which is engaged in comprehensive programs for the restoration of terraforms under the leadership of the chairman of the committee. At the last meeting of this group this issue was raised again. USAID’s international partners suggested that these programs should be drawn into the Law “On the Fundamentals of State Regional Policy,” but we were informed that a separate working group under the leadership of Deputy Minister Mrs. Azarkhina is working on the issue of duplicating programs and recovery plans in the Ministry of Reconstruction. The ministry has not yet reported on the results of its work.
– At the level of government institutions, there is talk about the advisability of restoring destroyed cities? Who will make difficult decisions about whether to restore Bakhmut, Avdievka...?
– There are isolated statements. There is no policy on this yet. I hope the Ministry of Reconstruction is developing it; it should start a corresponding discussion. But, unfortunately, regional issues are not a priority for the Ministry of Reconstruction.
A separate issue is the development of a General Settlement Scheme for Ukraine. We had it for 20 years, starting in 2000. It ended its existence in 2021. That same year there was a discussion about whether it was needed at all. I believe that it is necessary, especially in the situation we have today. The profile of our regions has changed greatly due to the war. We must rethink what is being done in individual regions and how exactly this is happening. Based on the diagram, we will be able to discuss whether we should restore a specific settlement or not.
– What are the main challenges facing legislators regarding restoration?
– There is no specific answer here. After all, the restoration must be built back better, otherwise Europe will not support it financially. What we build must be the best. At the same time, construction must be inexpensive, fast and of high quality. But how to solve this triangle is an individual decision.
– What is missing for the process of “building back better”?
– There is a lack of implementation of the European Directive on public procurement in the field of architectural design and accelerated procedures. I am cautious about deregulation, but still some things can be simplified.
About risks, PR technologies and the opacity of bill No. 5655
- The authors of bill No. 5655 assured that all the problems of the industry and future recovery would be solved by their bill. But what, in your opinion, actually caused its appearance?
– I don’t know who came up with the “brilliant” idea for this development. Like any bill, this one has good and bad sides. On the good side, it provided for the creation of an insurance fund for project documentation. That is, all projects developed with budget funds must be archived. There was also an improvement in digitalization. Fixed the right to obtain urban planning conditions and restrictions before holding an architectural competition.
But the problem with this bill is something else – a flawed general concept. The authors never explained what they really wanted to change. Even the deputies on the committee never found out the true intentions of the authors. And when all the edits were made, the text turned out to be written contrary to people’s expectations. This is the main problem.
– Quite a lot has already been written and said by the main stakeholders about the problems of the project. What is your opinion on this matter?
-In short, we have five main parties in the topic of urban planning: citizens, specialists in the field of urban planning, large developers, local governments and central government. If you go out into the street and ask Ukrainians which of these players they would like to strengthen, the answer will be unequivocal: citizens, because they are the ones who live in these cities and walk the streets. The other part of the respondents will definitely pay attention to quality, which means that we will talk about strengthening specialists.
Will the average Ukrainian remember the strengthening of the large capital market? I doubt it very much. If you choose between local governments and government agencies, then citizens will still choose local authorities. Because here there is someone to ask, just by coming to the council.
– But opponents will tell you that a well-functioning construction market means jobs, salaries and money for the budget. That is, as we understand it, the task of the state is not to destroy large developers, but to establish fair and transparent rules of the game for everyone?
– But 5655 proposes to strengthen the large capital market, which is essentially a business partner of the ministry. The project is written in a different paradigm. We are not talking about any transparent rules. It goes against people's ideas about urban planning reform. That is why the petition for a presidential veto received 42 thousand votes. It was a manifestation of popular anger due to injustice.
– And the opacity of acceptance?
- Yes. The bill was 348 pages long and came very late. At the committee meeting, the authors of the amendments were not given the floor. The edits were essentially not considered. I personally submitted 348 amendments to this bill. I wrote them myself. Two were technical, but 346 were essentially. And I presented each amendment to the subcommittee. All 346 were rejected, two were technically taken into account. But it's not about me, it's about the approach.
The deliberation model was unfair and undemocratic. My edit comes up - I report. The subcommittee chairman asks if anyone wants to discuss, but everyone remains silent. They are silent, but not supportive. The edit was rejected. Next edit Bondar. And so 346 times. Nobody wanted to figure it out. And I do not agree with this approach to legislative activity. Well, accordingly, I voted against it. It is obvious.
“Then the transcripts of those meetings disappeared.
- Yes.
– Do you think the president will sign it?
- It's hard for me to say. But I know exactly what we can do now: take the good from different bills and implement them.
– How do you assess the attempts to “implement” an inactive project on the part of its lobbyists and the relevant ministry, although there are warnings from the European Union?
– This is a method of promotion. Why not say “let’s do it in a new way,” I don’t know.
– Elena Shulyak at one of the events expressed the opinion that deputies would no longer support any initiative on the topic of urban planning, because they would be afraid of public condemnation. How do you perceive this thesis?
– This is a PR technology, nothing more. I remember earlier they started showing a certain pop singer on TV and immediately called her “a Ukrainian pop star.” Over time, she became entrenched in people’s imaginations just like that. This is a certain technology - to systematically talk about the same thing as a fait accompli.
– But this PR technology has a bad effect on our reputation in the eyes of our partners. After all, it turns out that they are being told a lie to their face, which they later find out about.
– This has bad consequences. I understand that partners take the position of observers and do not interfere or impose their opinions. This is how Europe looks at us, how much we have matured.
If we talk about the national mentality, then, in my opinion, Russians are small children who have a grudge and are trying to cause harm. Ukrainians are teenagers, hot-tempered and passionate, but not very mature. We often interrupt each other, behave poorly, and deceive our partners. Europeans are adults, they understand that they cannot impose their level and ideas on us. We have to grow up to this. But they quite restrainedly, but clearly outlined their position on 5655.
– Why, in your opinion, did the NAPC not have a clear position during the examination of bill No. 5655?
“I don’t know why this happened, but it looked very strange.” First, we receive a letter from the deputy head of NAPC stating that there are certain inconsistencies. Then we see an interview with the head of NAPC Alexander Novikov, where he says that everything is fine. He was invited to a committee meeting, but he did not come, and the deputies did not have the opportunity to ask him what it was.
I sent a deputy request to Alexander Novikov with a request to explain the position of the institution and once again officially clarify whether all the comments of the anti-corruption examination were taken into account. Novikov essentially did not answer, but confirmed two very important points: the bill was prepared and adopted in a non-transparent manner and only the Urban Planning Code can solve the problem.
There are also global issues related to the regulations for conducting anti-corruption examinations of the NACP. Formally, agency specialists have the right to join at a certain legislative stage. I invited them to the working group on the development of the Urban Planning Code, but I was told that the NAPC does not have the authority to join the working groups on the development of bills. They have the right to join only after the first reading.
And this, in my opinion, is a wrong story. Because instead of consulting at the development stage and preventing the useless work of many people, we see the registration of initiatives with subsequent scandals. If the concept is constructed incorrectly, then it is no longer possible to change anything. I always support preliminary consultations. The sooner you involve different experts, the more sustainable the result will be. But the NAPC is limited by regulations, and I am sure that this needs to be changed.
About the Town Planning Code, political times and the inevitability of real reform:
– Why does Ukraine need a Town Planning Code?
– We need to systematize legislation and form a branch of law such as construction or town planning law. We now have a sphere of public relations, but no branch of law. The phrase “Urban Planning Code” did not appear today. For 30 years, Ukrainian lawyers have been arguing about its necessity. This is a big legal debate. We have 22 laws that regulate the industry in certain ways. They were written at different times and carry different ideologies. Some of them have been emasculated, in particular by our convocation, unfortunately.
There must be a concept and a holistic ideology, regulation of the industry as a single large document. And not “the law on amendments to the law on amendments”, because it is all very difficult to read and impossible to explain. The Code is systematization, harmonization with Europe, a single ideological framework and the creation of industry rules.
– Did the idea of developing a Town Planning Code arise as an alternative to bill No. 5655?
- No. By the way, the working group was proposed by the head of the committee, Elena Shulyak. It was unexpected, to be honest. On February 26, 2023, she offered to develop it.
– But the creation of a working group to develop the Urban Planning Code was not without scandals. At the committee meeting, they reviewed the organizations included in the working group and demanded that they vote for each separately. Has this problem already been resolved?
“I understood: if you invite those whom I consider experts, it will always be accompanied by criticism. Because for every expert there is an opponent with whom I may not be familiar. Therefore, we wrote to all urban planning entities in institutions - guilds, associations, unions and trade unions, urban planning authorities, ministries, public organizations and construction chambers. They asked us to delegate representatives whom they considered experts, even if we did not know them. And we have assembled a large working group of 189 people, but more than 300 are participating in the discussion.
We have European traditions of moderation, you can communicate with people, the process is very lively, but manageable. The chairwoman of the committee approved the creation of a working group, but there was criticism regarding two people whom I did not specifically invite, but who were invited by the institution.
– What were the warnings?
– What was expressed at the committee: one of them is the developer of the Goloseevsky forest, and the other is a corrupt businessman from State Automobile Inspectorate. Although we simply sent an invitation to institutions, and they sent people to us. After that, the information spread, and a lot of people started writing and calling me. We have opened our doors to everyone.
Currently, about 300 people are involved in the work. I kept statistics on who goes and who doesn’t. There are those who signed up for the working group and never attended. There are independent experts who really wanted to, but don’t come. And there are independent experts who attend every meeting.
We cannot influence this. You just need to understand: if a member of the working group or an independent expert does not articulate his proposal, it will not be included. It all depends on the motivation of the people themselves. I believe that this code should be written by the market. Market in the sense of five subjects of urban planning: the community, specialists, the business environment, local authorities and the ministry.
- Well, then, firstly, not the market - you yourself said at the beginning of the conversation that the cornerstone should be the person who receives the service. Secondly, a working group of 300 people, with everyone having their own interests, is very risky. This may be why some critics of your initiative say that you will never write or accept this code. Just take the interest of compulsory health insurance companies, which, of course, are interested in having more leverage over construction. That is, how are you going to resolve all this? And what should be the role of the state? After all, only it can/should protect the interests, first of all, of citizens. And in addition to putting things in order locally - so that deputies finally accept urban planning documentation and stop making money on land allotments - a civilized construction market must start working in Ukraine. With transparent rules of the game, with banks, insurers and guarantees for citizens.
– I dream of a consensus that can be achieved by a collective mind. We are trying to get people out of their own professional bubble with personal interests and create an environment for them to think about the big picture. Therefore, a large group is not a risk. This is a reduction in the risk that someone’s “wish”, aimed at achieving personal interest contrary to the general one, will pass.
What do we see now based on the results of international experience? The leading role in urban planning processes is played by local governments and specialists. Compulsory health insurance companies are elected by residents, therefore they are forced to satisfy their interests, and specialists (architects, engineers, designers, archaeologists, surveyors, land surveyors and others) risk their reputation and loss of certificate. Therefore, their work is of high quality.
Residents also take an active part in the urban planning process. Local authorities create all conditions to ensure that residents are happy; they do not want to take political risks. This is how it works in developed countries of the world. What does this mean for us? Strengthening public ownership (for example, expanding the powers of the DOS in the field of urban planning), expanding the types of public participation and decentralization in the field of urban planning, which was started but not completed. Strengthening the genius loci of each city through the ability to set individual rules of the game.
The development of professional self-government is the cornerstone of improving quality in the construction industry. Instruments of encouragement and incentives to comply with the law, a change in the paradigm of urban planning - it must be based on common sense. A huge number of cities in Ukraine (the war only worsened the situation) are shrinking. Of the 23 agglomerations that showed population growth and economic revival, 12 remained as a result of the war, ten in occupied territories, one (Kramatorsk) was destroyed by 70%.
– How to deal with this challenge?
“We don’t even have a discussion about this.” By the way, we invited American planners - pioneers in this matter - to a working group meeting on November 30, they shared their experience in planning shrinking cities. We saw that the role of the state in Europe is the formation of national policies, control over the most dangerous or classified objects, and effective supervision of local governments.
Also, of course, we need an effective judicial system that guarantees citizens the protection of their rights.
– And, probably, law enforcement, which would give the locals a hand in time, and would not be in cahoots with them.
- Certainly. But in our industry these are first of all local authorities, then regional, and only then state. Of course, these principles now need to be applied to Ukrainian realities. Provide for “growing pains”, risks and the acquired ability of many to “solve things”. Perhaps some reforms should be done in several stages, taking into account the risks.
Problems can be solved in different ways. One country invented a special ballpoint pen for astronauts in orbit because regular pens don't work in zero gravity, and another gave astronauts pencils. It’s too early to say exactly what mechanisms will be used. Specialists in subgroups will work on this.
Nothing can be guaranteed now. But everyone agrees that this needs to change. Otherwise, the problem will not be solved. But now I can say that no one will be able to “blame” someone for making the necessary changes. I emphasized this to the committee when we presented the indicative action plan. Ideally, this is consensus. If there is no consensus on a point, the working group votes. If there is no agreement there either, let’s turn to Europe. If Europe speaks differently, we can write two hypotheses in the concept. Next will be consideration by deputies in the committee, and then voting in the hall. Mechanisms of direct democracy.
– At what stage are these working groups now? And when do you plan to present the concept of the code?
– The work of the international block has already been completed, where various regulatory systems were considered. Now we have moved on to highly specialized topics. We have the structure of the concept, edits have already been submitted to it. We will soon publish them on the committee’s website and there will be a newsletter on Facebook. It will be possible to see who submitted which edits.
Next, we will present the structure and concept, and by spring we will receive a draft text of the concept. And in the summer we will present it to the committee. Because the draft will need to be shown to a large number of people. We will have round tables. Perhaps we will travel around Ukraine again.
– What is the attitude towards the initiative of committee deputies? Are there any risks that corrupt things will be included in the scheme amendments?
– I don’t see this. I would like more activity from deputies. But it’s still a marathon, a long game.
– Does anyone at the committee level help you?
- No, they don’t join.
- And why? Do they regard this as your personal initiative?
- Don't know. Everything is individual there. Someone initially stood at position 5655 and believes that the code has no prospects. Someone, in principle, is not very active, waiting for the text to appear. Working group meetings are an additional waste of time, averaging 3.5 hours per week. This is a lot for a deputy.
– What happens after the concept?
– Let’s present the concept, get feedback and take it into account. Once approved by the working group, the concept will be presented to the committee. We will listen to the committee deputies, because they may also have comments. After that you need to write a code. The concept is written by specialists, and the code is written by lawyers.
Everyone wants the text to be short, beautiful and understandable. But lawyers assure that this does not happen. The main work of the code is to judge. The code works in court. Like, what do you think, is the code for you, specialists? No, the code is for judges, but there it is a completely different language.
– Is there a risk that this initiative will not be implemented before the end of the term?
- This is a big risk. Any bill has a “political calendar” - this is an internal phrase. After all, at the state level, politics, tenure and elections are always involved. I can’t make a calendar for this project because of the war. We set a total of two years of work, which is not enough for the code. You need at least four.
– If the code fails to be adopted in this convocation, it will be inherited by the next one, but may there be other ideas about urban planning?
- It may be so. I approach this philosophically. If there is new thinking, this is normal, because in Ukraine everything changes very quickly. The Code must look decades into the future. But, unfortunately, no one can realize this super task in war conditions.
Obviously, if the code is adopted, we will be criticized for not looking 10 years ahead. I understand it. But if new deputies feel the changes and quickly implement them, that’s great. Even if there are a number of laws that will be based on the concept of a code with the correct ideology, this is also not scary.
Moreover, all real reforms follow this path. But the pool of people who support the industry will not go away after the end of this parliament. In any capacity, we will continue to work on the code and find arguments for new political teams.
