A deadline is not a permit

Letter from the table

To the Red Tape Council,

I oppose the proposed rule that a permit should be treated as granted when an authority misses a deadline. I do not oppose deadlines. I do not oppose publishing service times or making applications easier to follow. My concern is that the proposed remedy confuses two different things: an authority being late, and an application being safe and lawful to approve.

In January this year, I applied through Stockholm’s municipal e-service for a building permit to make an alteration to a small business premises. I am keeping the description general because the point is the procedure, not the activity. I submitted the application on 12 January. The municipal building committee later treated it as complete from 2 February. On 9 April I received notice that the municipality was extending its decision period. It issued its decision on 16 June.

The applicable framework is the Planning and Building Act (2010:900). Under Chapter 9, Section 27, the municipality is to decide a building-permit matter within ten weeks from when the application is complete. If necessary, it may extend the period once, by no more than a further ten weeks. The relevant date is not necessarily the day an applicant first presses send: missing or inadequate documents can affect when the application is complete. That distinction matters when a clock is used to determine whether something has been approved.

During the wait, I paid 7,800 SEK for an additional drawing and technical note after the municipality requested more material. I had to keep plans uncertain while the application was being assessed. I could see why the authority needed the information; I could also see the cost of supplying it

and waiting for a decision. The process was not good simply because it had a statutory timetable. But a missed timetable would not, by itself, have answered the questions that the requested material was meant to answer.

The decision arrived within the extended period. In other words, my case is not a case of a municipality ignoring the statutory maximum. It is a case of why the details of the process matter. The clock began when the application was complete, the municipality used its permitted extension, and a decision followed. If silence had counted as consent at the earlier deadline, the legal result might have been an approval before the authority had finished examining the application.

Swedish law already gives applicants a time framework for building-permit cases. It also provides for a reduction of the permit fee when the authority exceeds the relevant decision period, under Chapter 12, Section 8a of the Planning and Building Act. That is not the same as having a fast or understandable process, and it does not repay every cost of delay. But it is a more proportionate response than deeming a permit granted without a decision.

I would support parts of RT-001. A small-business impact test could make the cost of unclear or repetitive requirements visible before a new rule takes effect. Published service times would let applicants compare the stated timetable with actual practice. A digital process with a clear list of required documents, a visible case status and one place to ask questions would have helped me understand what was outstanding. In Sweden, an application may involve a municipality and rules set at national level; a digital front door should make those responsibilities clearer, not suggest that every authority or permit has been merged into one.

But a universal silence-is-consent deadline is different. Building permits can affect neighbours, access, the safe use of a building and compliance with planning rules. The authority’s failure to answer does not remove those interests. Nor does it tell an applicant whether the file is complete, whether a technical issue remains, or whether an approval would carry conditions. Automatic consent might appear to help the

applicant in the moment, then leave that applicant exposed to disputes or a later challenge.

I ask the Council to separate its proposals. Keep an impact test, a usable digital route and published service standards. For missed deadlines, require a prompt explanation, a named route to escalate the case, and a clear account of any fee reduction or other remedy available under local law. Where the law provides a route to request a decision, explain how to use it. Measure how often authorities extend their periods and how often applicants are asked for further material. These steps would make delay visible and make it harder to leave a small business waiting without information.