More Than a Year Under the New Project Proposal Procedure: Where Do the Risks of Faster Permitting for Large-Scale Projects Lie?
A faster PP procedure does not automatically mean lower risk
More than a year after the new project proposal procedure came into force, it has become increasingly clear to me that faster procedures do not necessarily lead to smoother project development. In practice, especially in larger-scale projects, decisions made too early and without sufficient depth often result in additional coordination, rising costs, and delayed timelines.
The biggest risks arise even before design begins
In my work, I increasingly encounter situations where infrastructure, utility networks, or territorial constraints are not fully evaluated during the project proposal stage. At first, the process may appear to be moving quickly, but later it becomes necessary to revisit earlier decisions, revise them, or even restart part of the approval process. In such cases, a project may be delayed not by a few weeks, but by several months.
The most expensive mistakes usually begin with an insufficient understanding of the site
My experience shows that the most expensive mistakes usually do not happen on the construction site. They happen at the very beginning. Before design starts, it is essential to accurately assess the site, its constraints, engineering conditions, development potential, and the realistic scope of what can be built. When these questions are left for later stages, the overall project risk increases significantly.
Why a site development feasibility study is now essential
That is exactly why I consider a site development feasibility study to be one of the most important stages before making investment decisions. In my view, this is not an additional formality. It is one of the most important tools for understanding, at an early stage, what can actually be developed on a specific site, what restrictions apply, what additional solutions may be required, and how all of this will affect the project budget and timeline.
A site development feasibility study helps prevent unrealistic expectations
I often see investor expectations being shaped too early and without a full understanding of all relevant conditions. When decisions are based only on the formal minimum requirements, it later becomes clear that additional coordination, revisions, or even new procedures are necessary. A site development feasibility study helps reveal the real picture much earlier and supports more economically sound decision-making.
Successful design depends on teamwork
Today, design is no longer just an architectural task. It is a complex process that requires the involvement of specialists from different disciplines from the very beginning. Only this kind of approach makes it possible to plan realistically, identify potential obstacles, and avoid costly corrections later. In my view, this is the most responsible way to move a project forward, both for the investor and for the project as a whole.
What I consider most important today
Today, I find myself returning to the same idea again and again: the success of a project is usually determined not by late-stage decisions, but by how accurately everything is assessed at the very beginning. The earlier risks are identified, the more opportunities there are to avoid them. That is why I see a site development feasibility study not as an extra precaution, but as an essential condition for a high-quality, rational, and economically sound project.