Flash News


Building permits, municipalities ignore the conditions and implementation of projects on the ground

Building permits, municipalities ignore the conditions and implementation of

In at least eight municipalities audited by the Supreme State Audit, the procedures that were followed for building permits, completing documentation, complying with the payment of obligations or meeting technical and urban criteria have shown problems in one or several aspects.

Recently published, the audit reports have analyzed the municipality of Vorë, for which it is underlined that for some objects, the minimum distances from object to object have not been respected and concrete cases have been brought for this.

Meanwhile, another municipality, that of Pogradec, seems to have the same problem. The audit report underlines that the audited building permits were approved in non-compliance with the regular sectoral documentation for construction, highlighting deficiencies related to the indicators of distances between buildings and properties.

For the Municipality of Mirdita, as far as permits are concerned, the problem identified is related to documents that are not electronically signed. "Measures should be taken by the DPKZHT and the Municipality of Mirdita to check the electronic signature on all the documentation submitted in the e-permit system, to verify whether these documents were signed electronically or not, whether this signature was carried out according to the legal provisions and whether it was carried out by the persons responsible for the drafting of these documents" the report states.

For the municipality of Selenica, the problem regarding permits is related to institutional communication where, according to the report, it has not been specified which areas have passed for the construction of buildings.

"The Directorate of MTPM, the Board of Drainage, Forests and Pastures has not cooperated with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of the Municipality of Selenica, to obtain information regarding the areas that have been used for the construction of buildings, as well as from ASHK for those areas with a transaction for the sale of land or for the registration of construction permits" the report states.

Even for the Municipality of Klos, the KLSH has found that there are problems with the deadlines for reviewing the documentation for the permits as well as the minimum distances.

"The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Klos should take measures so that the approved building permits are in accordance and respect the minimum distances allowed between the object and the property boundary. The Klos Municipality should take measures for the review within the time limits of requests for equipment with construction permits. - The Municipality of Klos should take measures to respect all the defined criteria, for the regulation of the construction activity of the developer entities" recommends the KLSH.

For the Municipality of Delvina, KLSH has found that during the audit of specific cases, the distances between the object and the boundary of the property have not been respected according to the criteria of the Territory Development Regulation and the General Local Plan for the Municipality of Delvina.

Likewise, the accompanying documentation is missing as well as the technical projects, which in their entirety constitute the construction project, such as the technical report for the fire protection project, the seismic and geological study, the heating-cooling installation project, as well as the audit report of energy efficiency.

In the Municipality of Tropoja, the audit came to the conclusion that during the years 2021-2022 in the Municipality of Tropoja, no Building Permit was approved for private entities in state property. All approved permits were on private land of persons or entities that applied and were provided with construction permits.

For Kukës, KLSH has estimated in the report that anomalies have been found in the field of construction permits and their implementation on the ground. "In 2 cases, the plan presented is not in accordance with the approved project. In 2 cases, the minimum distances between the object and the boundary of the property were not respected.

In 1 case, the documentation uploaded to the e-permit system was presented with deviations of the existing land area before the approval of the permit supplement. In 2 cases, the implementation of the construction works is not in accordance with the approved construction fee," the document states./ Monitor

Latest news