Current town planning legislation is contradictory and needs revising
Dmitriy Medvedev discovered that business is suffocating from out-of-date requirements. 'Bolshoy portal nedvizhimosti' editors asked experts of the market, which requirements are definitely out-of-date in the construction field.
Kirill Chebakov, deputy general director of Metropolis commented:
'Construction is a complicated process, a process, when design solutions are put into effect. With that in mind, it becomes evident, that when we say 'out-of-date construction requirements', in most cases, it is the design process that is meant. Naturally, the stages when the initial permission documentation is obtained and the building is put into operation are not unimportant aspects, but let's farm it out to the executive authority.
As for the design process, and to be more precise, current norms and standards... First of all I'd begin with an example of non-compliance of the norms against each other and the modern life realities:
According to SP 30.13330.2012 cl.8.5.2. 'Process waste water containing combustible liquids, suspended substances, fats, oils, acids and other substances disturbing normal operation or causing destruction of utilities and treatment facilities, or containing valuable residuals, should be treated before coming to the external sewerage system, for which purpose local treatment facilities should be provided for in the building or next to it'. At the same time cl. 8.5.4. reads 'It is not allowed to install traps for quickly rotting mixes, or traps for highly combustible liquids inside buildings'.
First of all, we can see a non-compliance - cl.8.5.2 allows installation of treatment equipment inside a building, and cl. 8.5.4. - does not. Secondly, in modern life, when it is often impossible to drain waste water from the catering facilities by gravity, a grease trap needs to be installed inside the building, which does not comply with the requirements of cl.8.5.4. Whereas, equipment allowing to install it inside buildings is used all over the world (and in particular, in our country). However, because of the requirements of the SP standard, this deviation needs to be specified in the Special technical conditions each time.
Actually, there are thousands of such unfortunate contradictions. And if in this example one can refer to incorrect interpretation and / or understanding, there are far more serious contradictions of norms and standards to each other, where MEP design chapters, such as for instance Plumbing and Heating / Ventilation, come into contact. Both these chapters refer directly to heating and hence each of them tries to regulate this field in its own context, often contradicting the other. This is because SP norms and other standards are formed, supplemented and updated by a number of companies, generally, common limited liability companies, which not always understand what exactly the point is.
Trying to remedy the situation with contradictions, our government issued a well-known order PP 1521 that says which clauses or even the whole documents are obligatory and which are not. It was a good thing to do, however it was not without slips: SanPiN 2.2.1/22.214.171.1246-01 'Sanitary requirements to insolation and solar protection in rooms of residential and public buildings and spaces' is missing from the above Governmental Order, however it is obligatory, etc.
The bottom line is that current norms and standards are subject to revision with amazing regularity, the government updates its orders as to what to observe and what not to observe, and designers are trying to follow all this. It comes out badly, slowly and with mistakes.
Summing up I would like to say: naturally a number of norms and standards are out-of-date (for different reasons), but the main problem is not even this, but that the system of preparing, issuing and updating these documents is faulty in itself and requires a principally different approach. There must be a single state body, whether existing or newly formed, which will be responsible for the whole system of norms and standards and correlation of all documents with each other.
Further, the whole system needs to be reformed crucially, changed from permitting (norms describe only what is permitted), and experts interpret the rest as 'no one has done it and I will not approve it' to prohibiting (norms describe only what is prohibited). Definitely, this will allow to avoid dual or equivocal interpretation of norms and what is more important will allow to use really genuine and advanced solutions.
In other words, only with a complex and systematic approach can we significantly move the whole construction sector of the Russian Federation forward.
Read other comments here.