CẮT GIẢM THỦ TỤC XÂY DỰNG, ĐỪNG LƯỢC BỚT TRÁCH NHIỆM / REDUCE CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES, BUT NOT LEGAL

The construction permit – one of the administrative considered as cumbersome recently, may soon be waived in areas where detailed planning and urban design have been approved.

This is considered a breakthrough in reducing administrative procedures for citizens. However, how can management and post-construction inspection be conducted to ensure construction quality, safety, and the preservation of urban architectural integrity?

Applying for a construction permit at the ward-level office has been a “headache” for Mr. T. D. H in Hanoi over the past six months. Despite numerous visits and the completion of various procedures and paperwork, his application remains incomplete:

“The land is legally owned, does not arise any disputes, and all taxes have been fully paid. But when I want to build a house, they insist on having the land use right certificate. They clearly list the required documents, which they claim are easy to obtain. But once I submit one, they say another is missing, it’s extremely burdensome for ordinary citizens”.

The good news for Mr. H. and many others is that, going forward, they may no longer need to obtain a construction permit in areas where a 1/500 detailed planning map and urban design have already been approved under the Law on Architecture. Instead, the relevant authorities will conduct post-construction inspections based on the documents submitted by the investor to the local government. This proposal was presented by the Ministry of Construction at a regular Government press conference, in line with the Prime Minister’s directive to streamline administrative procedures in the construction sector.

Most citizens agree with and support the policy initiative:

“In my opinion , applying for construction permit does cause inconvenience citizens. It requires multiple visits, paperwork, and significantly affects people’s lives. Now that the permit requirement is being removed, it is receiving strong support from the public”. 

“In the end, people will still build, with or without a construction permit, they will find one way or another to proceed. And that’s precisely where negative practices and misconduct can rise”.

“When conducting inspections, if the land is legally owned, authorities should facilitate the construction process for the people. Reminding them of occupational safety and environmental protection which do not affect the construction implementation”. 

According to Professor Dang Hung Vo, former Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Environment, the reduction of administrative procedures in the construction sector is a positive signal reflecting a shift from pre-approval management to post-inspection, thereby facilitating greater convenience for both citizens and businesses.

Citing a bottleneck that has existed for the past 25 years, Mr. Dang Hung Vo noted that many foreign direct investment enterprises (FDI enterprises) have expressed that they do not necessarily seek incentives such as land use fee reductions or certain tax benefits. Instead, they only need to perform procedures quickly so that the investment preparation process does not disrupt their financial planning.

Agreeing on the necessity of removing construction permit requirements in areas with approved planning, Lawyer Le Cao, Managing lawyer of FDVN Law Firm, Da Nang Bar Association, stated that although citizens are required to complete numerous steps to obtain a construction permit, in reality, construction order remain poorly enforced in many places due to the lack of inspection and supervision. Therefore, eliminating administrative barriers must go hand in hand with effective and properly implemented enforcement measures:

“Even with a permit, people are not always comply, so now that the permit is being removed, there is a significant risk that people may build arbitrarily, disregarding essential standards such as construction safety, fire preventive, etc. Once the consequences occur, remediation becomes extremely difficult, the urban planning system may be severely disrupted, potentially resulting in forced demolitions or the waste of completed structures.

While permits are eliminated, management must be strengthened, we need to develop a centralized database and an online construction management system. Standardized designs and technical criteria must be established for specific urban areas. Based on the information registered by citizens, authorities should be able to track the construction start date, monitor construction work, and ensure that construction comply with the approved artchitectural style and detailed zoning plans of the area”.

To manage and monitor constructions effectively, Architect Ngo Doan Duc, former Vice president of Architects Association Vietnam, has emphasized the importance role of planning and responsibilities of local authorities. especially when the upcoming removal of the district-level administration:

There must be a planning framework so that people know where they are allowed to build. Once the planning is made public, authorities should explain it, provide implementation guidelines, and specify regulations such as building height and other technical standards. Issuing permits that go into details like where the staircase or septic tank should be, etc are not necessary. If post-inspection is conducted, what does it post-inspect?

That is safety of environment, fire prevention, security, and order. Now that the focus should be more in commune level aligned with the local territory. Communes are now being larger than before as they are merged. We must carefully consider aspects before issuing new regulations, in order that the removal of permits shall yield positive outcomes, rather than unintended consequences that we later have to “fix”.

Regarding construction quality management, Professor Dang Hung Vo stated that the Ministry of Construction should thoroughly study digital solution when removing construction permits:

“Some argue that planning are not related to the quality of construction. In my view, we must maintain a firm grasp on construction quality management. For example, all construction activities must be based on s specific technical design.

The process of reviewing these technical designs can be entirely automated through digital platforms, thereby avoiding incidents such as building collapsing during construction. Simplifying administrative procedures is a valid objective, but while unnecessary steps can be streamlined, those aspects that require oversight must still be strictly controlled”.

In the challenging journey of administrative reform, the construction permit has long been viewed as a bottleneck, not only consuming time, money, and effort from citizens and enterprises, but also creating room for bureaucratic harassment and corruption.

Removal of construction permits in areas with approved zoning plans is a bold step forward. However, from the perspective of VOV Traffic, untangling this “knot” requires strengthening post-inspection mechanisms to ensure that the “urban garment” fits neatly.

First, it must be affirmed that the reform of administrative procedures in the construction sector is a step in the right direction, directly addressing the longstanding expectations of both citizens and businesses. In areas where a 1:500 zoning plan and approved urban design are already in place, with detailed specifications down to boundaries, building height, and construction density, requiring citizens to apply for a construction permit becomes an unnecessary procedure.

The reduction not only facilitates construction and development, avoiding from creating psychological burdens for citizens and businesses, but also reduces pressure on authorities and sends a strong message about institutional reform; do not control formalities, or intervene in people’s lives in a rigid, administrative manner.

However, any streamlining must be accompanied by a corresponding monitoring mechanism. The construction permit have long served as a tool for the competent authorities to examine technical documents, ensuring that projects comply with safety standards, architectural standards, fire prevention, environmental protection, etc.

In reality, there have been areas with detailed planning, yet the built houses turned out chaotic, inconsistent building heights and irregular structures. If the permit required is removed without reinforcing the enforcement of planning regulations, it will be akin to “releasing chickens only to chase them after”, allowing fragmented urban areas to become even more disjointed.

Each city is like a “garment”, whether it appears elegant or disheveled, cohesive or patchwork, depends on the quality of planning and management. If the construction permit is removed, the authorities shall replace them with other tools to ensure that this “garment” remains orderly and well-fitted.

In there, post-inspection is “measuring tape” that must be firmly held in hand. It is unrealistic to expect citizens to be 100% self-compliant, as interests often outweigh awareness, especially in the highly speculative real estate field. Once the pre-approval mechanism is eliminated, the post-inspection framework must be crystal clear, stringent, and effective.

Who is responsible for the inspections? At what stage should the inspection take place? What penalties will be imposed for non-compliance? Which authority has the power to order demolition? These questions need to be answered explicitly and condified in law, not left to “flexible interpretation”.

To achieve this, first, the quality of the initial planning and urban design must be guaranteed, avoid from the status “as good as non-existent”. Planning documents need to be deeply invested with true technical depth, foresight, and in alignment with the actual development conditions. If the foundation of planning is weak, the post-inspection oversight will serve meaningless.

Once quality planning and urban design are in place, the data need to be digitized, made public and easily accessible. If citizens can clearly and transparently research, there will be no need to “apply”, simply “comply correctly”. Technology infrastructure must be seriously invested in, and digital applications must operate effectively and consistently from the central to the local level.

In particular, as the country transitions to a two-tier administrative system, the responsibilities of commune-level authorities will become heavier. Without an intermediate level, local forces shall serve as the “frontline” in monitoring and enforcing construction order. This requires grassroots authorities not only to be prepared with sufficient professional capacity, but also to operate under a clear coordination mechanism with provincial-level construction management departments.

Ward and commune officials must be sufficiently qualified to carry out post-inspection. There must be a strong deterrent. Most importantly, there must be transparency at every stage, from planning, design appraisal to construction supervision. When more authority is delegated, eliminating the permit may unintentionally open the door to misconduct and abuse of power, especially in the form of arbitrary inspections and inconsistent enforcement. A major reform must not be overshadowed by outdated administrative practices, where citizens still feel compelled to go through “backdoor” for lawful projects.

Finally, a civilized city is not monitored solely by regulatory agencies, but also by its community. When citizens have enough information, they are encouraged to participate in monitoring construction work within their living areas, they shall become the most responsive force in detecting and reporting violations. The more proactive the community, the more transparent the authorities, and the stronger the foundation for urban order.

The removal of construction permits in specific and the reduction of administrative procedures in general is a significant step in the reform of institution, it reflects a shift from a system of control to one of service, from a “permission - approval” mindset to a model of “compliance – oversight”, from paper-based management to digital governance.

But for this to be a truly substantive advancement, it requires a capable, responsible, and adaptive to embrace new methods. Only then we can shape cities that are civilized and orderly, where every construction is a “tailored”, lawful part of urban fabric.