Diaphragm in KI2: Inspection ordered removal, UE says permission not needed

A new legal dispute has emerged over the construction of a reinforced concrete diaphragm at the site of the Kemijski Institut (Chemical Institute) in Ljubljana, with conflicting interpretations from local authorities regarding its legality under building regulations. The issue centers around whether the structure, which was built before the issuance of a construction permit for the new building (KI2), constitutes a legal object or part of the project, thereby requiring official approval. The reinforced concrete diaphragm, measuring approximately 60 centimeters in thickness and 149 meters in length, was constructed prior to the granting of the construction permit for the new KI2 building. Initially described in the project documentation as a temporary protective structure intended for the removal of the old building, it was later planned to be reused during the excavation phase of the KI2 construction. This dual-purpose design raised questions about its legal classification and compliance with building laws. On June 10, the Building Inspection Office issued a decision stating that the construction of the diaphragm without a valid construction permit constituted an illegal object or part thereof. Under Article 93 of the Construction Act, the inspection ordered the suspension of construction and the removal of the structure. The affected party appealed the decision, which was dismissed by the competent ministry, leaving the administrative process ongoing. According to the inspectorate, obtaining a legally valid construction permit could potentially lead to the termination of the inspection proceedings. However, the response from the Administrative Unit in Ljubljana contradicts this interpretation. On May 19, the unit issued a construction permit for the reconstruction of the Kemijski Institut buildings. When asked whether the reinforced concrete diaphragm was included within the scope of the permit, the unit clarified that it was not considered part of the building for which the permit was issued. Instead, they classified the diaphragm as a method of securing the excavation pit, thus exempting it from requiring a construction permit. The unit further explained that during the permitting process, they assess whether the proposed construction meets legal requirements based on the project documentation. They stated that existing interventions prior to the permit’s issuance were not relevant to the granting of the permit. This stance suggests that the diaphragm's presence did not affect the validity of the permit, despite being constructed beforehand. The discrepancy between the two authorities highlights a growing legal ambiguity surrounding the status of structures built before formal permits. While the Building Inspection Office views the diaphragm as an unauthorized object, the Administrative Unit categorizes it as a technical measure rather than a construction element. This divergence raises concerns about the clarity of regulatory frameworks governing such cases. The situation underscores broader challenges in urban development, particularly when projects involve complex engineering solutions that may blur the lines between temporary infrastructure and permanent construction. As the administrative process continues, the outcome will likely set a precedent for similar disputes in future developments. Until then, the fate of the diaphragm, and its implications for the KI2 project, remains uncertain.