Through the Estonian Employers' Confederation, business leaders have voiced concern about delays in planning procedures, inconsistent quality in their processing and the subjective nature of decisions made by officials.

While the newly drafted bill is relevant, it does not adequately address these issues, said Hando Sutter, CEO of the Estonian Employers' Confederation, in comments to ERR.

"If we want to make improvements — and clearly the goal is to speed up planning — then we need to understand exactly where time is being lost and how legislative changes can help. There's some confusion here, because while we do have deadlines written into the law, the problem is that they are regularly and systematically ignored. Do we really need a separate legislative amendment just to start following the law?" Sutter asked.

"I doubt it. We simply need to change our behavior. Maybe some deadlines and responsibilities for the involved parties need to be clarified," he added.

Employers are also dissatisfied with vague elements in the draft, such as the general requirement that planning must take climate change into account.

"The problem with slogans in legislation is, first, that they are not useful, and second, that an overly eager official could interpret them arbitrarily and implement something entirely different from what the law originally intended. That's why we'd prefer to leave out these kinds of declarative statements and instead focus on clarity," Sutter said.

The Employers' Confederation submitted feedback listing 11 points of concern regarding the draft bill.

Ivan Sergejev, deputy secretary general for planning at the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, highlighted one of the most significant proposed changes: eliminating the category of designated spatial plans managed by local governments. This, he said, would save time in the planning process.

Sergejev noted that work would continue on improving procedural timeframes.

"Our initial draft proposed reducing the time allowed for processing a detailed plan from three years to two and a half. That was based on the fact that more than 80 percent of detailed plans are finalized within that timeframe. We often hear complaints that planning procedures drag on endlessly — and for some cases, that's absolutely true. But what gets overlooked is that four out of five plans are actually processed at a reasonable pace," Sergejev said.

"That said, deadlines are often not met, and for that reason, we're now considering not implementing this particular change just yet. The current bill, which has been released for public consultation, is more of a tactical adjustment," he added.

The Planning Act has been amended several times in recent years, and according to Sergejev, more substantial reforms are still to come.

"We have several work streams underway and one of them is a more thorough review of the Planning Act. For instance, we're working on defining specific deadlines and potential sanctions. But since the legislation and planning system are both very complex, such fundamental changes require more time and have not been included in this draft. We're working on them in the background and will likely propose a more comprehensive amendment to the Planning Act later. We just didn't want earlier work to be delayed because of these new ideas. That's why this current bill is more tactical in nature. A broader reform of the Planning Act and a rethinking of the planning system as a whole is very much in progress," Sergejev said.

He also acknowledged that some recent changes to the Planning Act have not delivered the expected results.

For example, it was anticipated that as of 2023, planning wind farms through local government-designated spatial plans would become easier. But in practice, Sergejev said, that has not happened.

"What complicates the planning system is the sheer number of stakeholders. There's political interest in the outcome of a plan, local communities can voice their opinions and various agencies get to weigh in. The planning process as a whole is very complex. That's why it needs to be addressed in a more holistic way," Sergejev said.

"Sometimes it might seem like we at the ministry are caught up in fluff — service design and whatnot — but we've come to understand that the human element in planning, the emotional side and willingness to cooperate, disproportionately impacts the outcome of the process," Sergejev added. "So, the system definitely needs to be examined from that perspective as well, and we should try to incorporate those insights into future amendments to the Planning Act."

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications plans to review the more than 30 pages of feedback received within the next couple of weeks. The goal is to submit the bill to the Riigikogu within a few months.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!