The new Spatial Planning Act in Croatia
The new Spatial Planning Act (part of the so‑called “Bačić laws”) represents a radical reform of the system: on the one hand it brings a high level of digitalisation and faster procedures, and on the other it entails serious risks of centralisation, legal uncertainty and increased investor pressure on space.
Key novelties and declared advantages
The Act enters into force on 1 January 2026 together with the new Building Act and the Energy Efficiency in Buildings Act.
Full digitalisation is introduced: spatial plans are prepared and maintained in a standardised digital form (ePlanovi), and are connected to eDozvola and other registry systems.
The goal is to significantly shorten the time needed to issue permits (e.g. single‑family houses in about 30 days), with stronger standardisation of documentation.
The instrument of urban land readjustment is reintroduced – it enables the consolidation and reorganisation of land in urban areas, with a threshold of 50% + 1 owner to launch the procedure.
The expansion of building areas is restricted as long as there are undeveloped and infrastructurally unserviced plots within existing zones, with the aim of encouraging the “internal development” of settlements.
In the tourism segment, control is strengthened: an almost total ban on subdivision (condominium) of tourist buildings (with exceptions), more precise rules for mobile homes and distances from the coastline.
Obligations to prepare building maintenance plans are introduced and BIM modelling in design is encouraged.zip.com+1
Positive for the system: digitalisation, transparency of procedure status, better data coordination and potentially less administrative arbitrariness, with more rational use of existing building areas.
Structural risks and criticisms
Experts and part of the political public raise very sharp objections, focused on three groups of risks.
-
Legal and planning risks
Within the envisaged deadlines, more than 3,500 new spatial plans must be adopted, while existing ones (including the “new‑generation plans”) cease to be valid; the professional community considers this target unrealistic and warns of the danger of a legal vacuum and “spatial chaos”.
In the transitional period there is a high degree of uncertainty: investors, banks and local self‑government units can hardly predict which plan will be in force at the time of issuing a permit and how the new rules will be interpreted.
For certain types of interventions (e.g. energy projects, affordable housing) the Act allows decisions to be made even contrary to valid plans, which undermines the hierarchy of spatial planning and makes legal protection of neighbours. -
Centralisation and weakening of local self‑government
The Croatian Chamber of Architects and architectural associations explicitly point out the “weakening of the powers of local and regional self‑government”, as key levers of decision‑making on space are shifted to the state level.
Projects of special interest (energy, affordable housing, etc.) can be implemented through fast‑track procedures, effectively reducing the role of city/municipal councils and local public debates.
More frequent conflicts are expected between local politics and the central government / investors, with an increase in administrative disputes and potential constitutional initiatives. -
“Investor‑driven urbanism” and spatial fragmentation
Critics speak of the legalisation of “investor‑driven urbanism”: an investor with a letter of intent can strongly push for the adoption or amendment of a detailed development plan (UPU) for their project within a short time, while comprehensive planning of the settlement remains in the background.
The role of the urban development project and urban land readjustment can be reduced to servicing individual schemes instead of being an instrument of strategic city‑shaping; this leads to fragmented development and weaker integration of public facilities.
Experts warn that in this way the tradition of planning public functions (schools, kindergartens, parks, transport network) is degraded and space becomes a series of “islands” of private interests.
Social and environmental risks
Part of the professional and activist scene speaks of a “sell‑off of space” and a weakening of the understanding of space as a constitutional category of general interest, because construction can be allowed even contrary to existing plans.
There is particular pressure on the coastline and on agricultural and forest land, especially due to energy and tourism projects which can use accelerated procedures and bypass local plans.
In the long term there is a risk of spatial and social stratification: highly profitable “energy‑tourism” zones as opposed to residential areas with weak infrastructure and a lack of public facilities.
Operational implications for developers and local authorities
For developers and consultants this means an increased need for risk control and flexible project structuring.
It is difficult to predict whether a project will “fall under” the old or the new plan during the procedure, which increases the risk that feasibility studies, planning bases and financial models are prepared under rules that then change in the middle of the process.
Financial institutions will probably demand stronger legal and planning due diligence, more conservative assumptions on permitting timelines and larger built‑in reserves for delays and disputes.
Local self‑government units face a huge operational burden of drafting plans in a short period, while at the same time losing part of their strategic control; in coastal cities such as Dubrovnik this is combined with strong public pressure, which increases the reputational and political risk of projects.
At the same time, accelerated procedures, digitalisation and instruments such as urban land readjustment objectively open up new opportunities for those who know how to manage risks well, negotiate with local self‑government and involve experts (urban planners, architects, lawyers) in a timely manner.
