The Building Inspection Deadlock: First Established by Decree-Law No. 595, Then by Law No. 4708, and Through the Time That Has Passed Under the Building Inspection Law (18 March 2014)
It is hard to believe that, more than 13 years after building inspection was established first by Decree-Law No. 595 and then by Law No. 4708, and after all the time that has passed under the building inspection law, building inspection is still being debated.
While the shortcomings of the system are well known, the failure to produce a solution and to establish a high-quality building inspection mechanism is not understandable.
If we examine the timeline of the laws and regulations enacted on building inspection following the 1999 Marmara earthquake:
Decree-Law No. 595 on Building Inspection
10.04.2000
Law No. 4708 on Building Inspection
13.07.2001
Regulation on the Procedures and Principles for the Implementation of Building Inspection
12.08.2001
Building Inspection Implementation Regulation
05.02.2008
Amendment to a Regulation Article
01.07.2011
Decree-Law No. 648 (Amendment to a Law Article)
17.08.2011
Decree-Law No. 662 (Amendment to a Law Article)
02.11.2011
Regulation Amending the Building Inspection
Implementation Regulation
03.04.2012
Regulation Amending the Building Inspection
Implementation Regulation
14.04.2012
Regulation Amending the Building Inspection
Implementation Regulation
05.02.2013
With the amendments made to the law and the regulations, building inspection has continuously regressed. If I were to ask you to name a sector in our country that has steadily declined both in quality and in price, I can almost hear you say “Building Inspection.”
On such an important matter, the state of a law drawn up with the mindset of “I did it, that’s enough,” without regard for the views of stakeholders and the organisations working in the field, is truly distressing.
A building inspection company, established in accordance with the law,
says, “I will carry out inspection.”
It tries to seek out and find the owner of the building it is to inspect.
Having found them, it says, “I would like to inspect you.”
In return for the inspection, it sets its price at the lowest minimum fee determined by the ministry.
THIS IS AN UNBELIEVABLE SITUATION, and for thirteen years the building inspection deadlock has continued in this way.
Can you show us another example, apart from building inspection, of someone who carries out inspection on behalf of the public and for their country, yet is chosen by the very person they are to inspect?
Who, then, is the one who loses?
Is it only building inspection, which by law has little authority but a great deal of responsibility?
Is it only our citizens, who wish to live in sound housing—their right to life?
Is it our buildings, constructed without inspection and far removed from the earthquake regulations and from quality?
Is it the economy our country loses every 50 years, over and over, in the name of urban transformation?
In fact, the building inspection system established by Law No. 4708 is, in terms of serving its purpose, an entirely positive and correct law, because before the law the municipalities, which acted as the control mechanism, could turn a blind eye to faulty practices and defective workmanship due to electoral concerns and political approaches. With today’s four-way inspection system (Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation–municipality–laboratory–building inspection organisations), the lack of inspection is being eliminated.
