Aygül Özkan, Chief Executive of the German Property Federation (ZIA), has commented on the draft Building Code amendment during the public hearing of the German Bundestag's Committee for Housing, Urban Development, Building and Municipalities. She praised it as a significant step in the right direction. The federal government is addressing key demands of the real estate industry by digitalising development planning, accelerating procedures, and increasing openness to serial and modular construction methods. These measures could help to realise urgently needed housing more quickly.
Despite this positive assessment, the ZIA identifies considerable need for improvement in several areas of the draft. A central point of criticism concerns the design of deadlines. Ms Özkan emphasised that procedural deadlines are only effective if their exceeding results in concrete consequences. Merely setting deadlines without ensuring the necessary binding nature is insufficient. Consequently, delayed statements from authorities should be able to be disregarded in the future.
Deadlines and Site Potential
Furthermore, the proposed standard deadline of two years for development planning procedures is considered too long. The ZIA instead demands a maximum procedure duration of 18 months, coupled with a binding decision rule, to make processes more efficient. In addition, the association criticises that the current amendment still offers too little scope for creating additional space within existing building stock. The potential of urban areas must be better utilised.
The ZIA advocates for a temporary 'densification turbo', which should provide municipalities and investors with additional room for manoeuvre. Measures such as additional storeys, infill development, and repurposing can, according to ZIA, quickly generate new residential and usable space, thereby helping to relieve pressure on the housing market. These approaches would enable effective use of already developed areas.
Avoiding Additional Burdens
The association also critically assesses additional burdens that could further increase the costs for building new homes. The Chief Executive made it clear that acceleration and cost increases are mutually exclusive. Instruments such as the social land contribution and the planned sealing factor would significantly raise construction costs, which would ultimately also affect rent levels. The creation of affordable housing must not be thwarted by erecting additional hurdles. Therefore, in the ZIA's view, these instruments should be removed from the draft bill to avoid cost increases and not jeopardise the goal of affordable housing.
Finally, the ZIA appealed to the federal government to consistently align the present draft with the overarching goal of acceleration during the further parliamentary process. Affordable housing represents a fundamental issue of trust, social participation, and economic prospects. It is all the more important to comprehensively utilise all opportunities for faster, simpler, and more cost-efficient construction. A decisive amendment to the Building Code could make a tangible contribution and give new momentum to housing construction. A fundamental prerequisite for any acceleration effort, however, is the guarantee of property protection, as otherwise any endeavour would become obsolete.
