After 31 August 2026, the absence of a general plan may make development projects more difficult and affect the position of property owners. KU Professor Jan Chmielewski outlines a possible route for challenging municipal inaction. A complaint would, however, require proof that the absence of the plan infringes a specific legal interest. The court’s powers would also be limited.
A plan designed to set the framework for municipal development
The municipal general plan is one of the most important elements of the reform of Poland’s spatial planning system. It is intended to cover the municipality’s entire territory and replace the existing study of conditions and directions for spatial development. It is an act of local law that sets the framework for preparing local spatial development plans and issuing development conditions decisions.
The significance of this reform stems from problems that have accumulated over the years. Local spatial development plans cover only part of Poland, while individual development conditions decisions have come to play a major role in shaping the built environment. This has contributed to urban sprawl and made it more difficult to pursue a coherent spatial policy. The new plan is intended to bring greater order to the system. Municipalities will use it to define planning zones and urban planning standards, among other things. The document may also designate supplementary development areas, which will affect the possibility of obtaining new development conditions decisions.
The validity of existing studies has been extended until 31 August 2026. The change was introduced by the Act of 30 April 2026, which entered into force on 1 July. As the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology explains, this has given local authorities additional time to prepare the new documents.
But what happens if a municipality still fails to adopt a plan by that deadline?
Adopting the plan is a municipal obligation
KU Professor Jan Chmielewski examines this issue in his academic article, “Complaint About Inaction Regarding Failure to Adopt the Municipal General Plan”, published in the journal Ius Novum.
His starting point is a distinction between two types of action by local authorities. In some cases, the law gives a municipality discretion: it may adopt a particular act of local law but is under no obligation to do so. This is generally the case with a local spatial development plan.
The situation is different for the general plan. The law states that the municipal council adopts such a plan for the territory of the municipality. According to the author, this creates a legal obligation, the performance of which has been linked to the period during which the existing studies remain valid.
This distinction is crucial. A complaint against inaction may be considered when the law requires an authority to take a specific action. It is difficult to allege inaction where the legislature has left the decision to the authority.
Can the absence of a plan be challenged?
The legislation governing proceedings before administrative courts does not provide a general right to lodge complaints against inaction consisting in the failure to issue an act of local law. Professor Jan Chmielewski identifies another possible legal basis: Article 101a(1) of the Municipal Government Act.
This provision applies when a municipal authority fails to perform an action required by law and its inaction infringes a particular person’s legal interest or entitlement.
In the author’s view, the provision may also apply when a municipality fails to adopt a general plan despite its statutory obligation to do so. This is a proposed interpretation of the existing law. Its practical significance can only be assessed once similar cases reach the voivodeship administrative courts.
Living in the municipality is not enough
The right to lodge a complaint would not automatically be available to every resident. A person applying to the court must demonstrate a link between the municipality’s inaction and an infringement of their own legal interest or entitlement.
The interest should be grounded in law and directly concern the complainant’s situation. It must also be current and real. A general interest in how the municipality is developed would probably not meet these requirements.
The position of a property owner may be different if the absence of a plan genuinely restricts their ability to use, develop or sell a plot of land. The author refers to a judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court concerning the absence of a local plan for a health-resort protection zone. The court held that the complainant’s legal interest could arise from provisions protecting property rights because the municipality’s inaction prevented her from selling the property.
According to Professor Chmielewski, similar reasoning may be applied to general plans. Each case would, however, require an individual assessment. The complainant would have to demonstrate a specific consequence of the absence of a plan, rather than merely a risk that problems might arise in the future.
The court cannot adopt the plan on the municipality’s behalf
Even if the complaint is upheld, this will not automatically resolve the property owner’s problem. The powers of an administrative court in such a case are limited.
The court cannot draft the plan, determine the designated use of particular areas or replace the municipal council in voting on it. There is also no explicit legal basis for the court to set a deadline by which the local authority must adopt the document.
These limitations stem from municipal autonomy and the division of powers between local government and the judiciary. A general plan covers the municipality’s entire territory and requires decisions on numerous interconnected spatial matters. It cannot be prepared solely in relation to a plot owned by one person.
A complaint may therefore result in a court confirming that the municipality has failed to act, but the available means of compelling it to take a specific action remain unclear. The author argues that the legislature should explicitly regulate both the possibility of challenging a failure to adopt a general plan and the consequences of a court upholding such a complaint.
A municipality may choose not to designate a supplementary development area
The content of an adopted plan raises a separate issue. The law divides its components into mandatory and optional elements. A municipality must define planning zones and municipal urban planning standards, among other things. It may, however, designate supplementary development areas.
This distinction is important because the location of a plot within such an area will be one of the conditions for obtaining a new development conditions decision. The absence of a supplementary development area may therefore significantly restrict development on land not covered by a local spatial development plan.
This does not, however, give a property owner the right to demand that their plot be included in such an area. In this respect, the municipality exercises the discretion granted to it by the legislature. According to Professor Chmielewski, a failure to designate a supplementary development area does not constitute inaction that can be successfully challenged under Article 101a of the Municipal Government Act.
The right to a court and municipal autonomy
Professor Jan Chmielewski’s analysis highlights the tension between two values. The first is an individual’s right to protect their interests against the consequences of inaction by public authorities. The second is the municipality’s autonomy in shaping spatial policy.
The current legislation does not resolve this tension unequivocally. There is a potential legal basis for lodging a complaint, but its admissibility and effectiveness will depend on the circumstances of the individual case and the interpretation adopted by the courts.
For a property owner, the key will be to demonstrate a real link between the absence of the plan and a restriction of their rights. Municipalities, in turn, may face the risk of court proceedings once the deadline for preparing the new documents has passed. The issue discussed in the academic publication may therefore soon become the subject of the first rulings by administrative courts.
About the publication
Jan Chmielewski, “Complaint About Inaction Regarding Failure to Adopt the Municipal General Plan”, Ius Novum 2026, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 74–87, DOI: 10.2478/in-2026-0018. Read the full article
