[Q&A] "Shortening the Period for Safety Inspection Retake Complexes... Strengthening the Supply Base"

Local Governments Want 'Single Rate' Instead of Discretion
"1st Phase New Towns, Comprehensive Review in Special Act"

Kwon Hyuk-jin, Director of the Housing and Land Office at the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, is announcing the 'Measures to Rationalize Reconstruction Safety Inspections' at the Government Sejong Complex on the 8th. / Photo by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport

[Asia Economy Reporter Noh Kyung-jo] The government has eased the 'safety inspection' standards, considered the last regulatory hurdle in the reconstruction maintenance projects. This will be uniformly applied to complexes currently undergoing safety inspections, and reconstruction-promoting complexes previously judged as 'maintenance' will have to reapply for safety inspections.

On the 8th, at a briefing held at the Government Sejong Complex, Kwon Hyuk-jin, Director of the Housing and Land Office at the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, said, "Since the complexes reapplying for safety inspections have already undergone one, the process will be faster," adding, "Because the adequacy review (secondary detailed safety inspection) is not mandatory, the procedure will be significantly shortened."

The 'Rationalization Plan for Reconstruction Safety Inspections' announced by the Ministry of Land on the same day includes lowering the weight of structural safety from the current 50% to 30% among the safety inspection evaluation items, and delegating the authority for adequacy reviews to local governments to be implemented in a limited manner.

Below is a Q&A with Director Kwon.

--What is the standard for 'significant deficiencies' that require adequacy review in conditional reconstruction?

▶After comprehensively analyzing past safety inspection cases, errors such as miscalculating sample sizes, skipping necessary tests, or lacking documentation even after tests were conducted were repeatedly found. These are considered errors that local government heads need to verify.

--Earlier, it was mentioned that local government heads could flexibly adjust the weighting of safety inspection evaluation items by up to 10%, but this seems to be missing.

▶The August 16th measures considered giving local government heads a ±5~10% discretion. However, after consultations with local governments, opinions favored providing a single fixed ratio. Most basic local governments, including Seoul and other metropolitan cities, requested that the Ministry of Land provide a single ratio. If local government heads had discretion, the ratio would generally be lowered based on residents' opinions. When the structural safety weight was 20% in the past, about 98% passed the safety inspection. This was considered excessive, so the structural safety weight was set at 30%, and combined with residential environment and aging factors, a total of about 60% was deemed appropriate.

--On October 1st, heads of first-generation new towns requested omission of preliminary safety inspections; was this reviewed?

▶Currently, the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act is a general regulation for reconstruction of individual complexes. Therefore, for first-generation new towns, where reconstruction plans must be established for entire districts, it is considered appropriate to define specific cases and regulations in a special law. Regarding first-generation new towns, based on this rationalization plan, a separate research project will be conducted to comprehensively review evaluation weights, preliminary safety inspections, and evaluation items.

--Regarding retroactive application, situations may vary by case. What happens to places that failed safety inspections?

▶Places judged as 'maintenance' with scores above 55 must reapply for safety inspections and proceed. Since they have already undergone one, the process will be somewhat faster. When adequacy review was not mandatory in the past, it took about 6-7 months. Adding adequacy review added another 6 months. The procedure for local government heads to verify is expected to take 2-4 weeks.

--For complexes currently undergoing adequacy review, can the review be omitted based on local government judgment even if in progress?

▶Yes. For 46 complexes where safety inspections have been completed and local government heads have approved, the procedure must be redone. However, for those currently in progress, adequacy review is not mandatory. Some complexes have already requested adequacy review, while others are waiting. If the local government head finds significant errors, they will request a re-examination; otherwise, they can let it pass.

--Is the preliminary safety inspection only reviewed for first-generation new towns?

▶Experts emphasize the necessity of the first preliminary inspection, but there is overlap with the second main inspection. The local government head needs to decide whether to conduct it. The law mandates the initiator to conduct the investigation, so preliminary safety inspections cannot be eliminated. However, for first-generation new towns, various measures will be studied and potentially reflected in a special law through research projects.

--What are the specific details regarding the adjustment of housing supply timing for conditional reconstruction complexes?

▶'Conditional reconstruction' is a daunting term. According to guidelines, it should be interpreted as 'conditionally adjustable timing.' Local government heads can adjust timing considering regional aging and relocation demand, but there is uncertainty. Since it could extend beyond 1, 2, or 3 years, it is specified that timing adjustments should be reviewed annually to decide whether to proceed.

--With all three major regulatory hurdles improved, is reconstruction activation possible amid market stagnation?

▶I think the seeds have been sown. No matter how much you sow, seeds do not sprout in winter. To be frank, the housing market freezes and thaws like seasons. The more so, the more we need to establish a supply base. There is strong demand from citizens who want to live in high-quality housing.

--The importance of private diagnostic institutions has increased. Is training mandatory?

▶It is not mandatory. There are about 1,000 private companies under the Facility Management Act. If training is conducted regularly by region, many will participate. Currently, training is held intermittently about once a year. The number of training sessions and locations will be expanded.