Problem

The introduction of the Unified State Electronic System in Construction was a positive step towards overcoming corruption in urban development. At the same time, it should be noted that at this stage, the implementation of the entire functionality of the Unified State Electronic System in Construction is not complete, and therefore the achievement of all the positive results of the Unified State Electronic System in Construction has not yet been ensured. In addition, during the practical implementation of the Unified State Electronic System in Construction, certain shortcomings were identified: additional functions in the Unified State Electronic System in Construction in the field of construction that are not aligned with the law; it is possible to obtaining an approval / permit in the absence of actual grounds for this.
Data entry into public registries and systems is inconsistent and uncoordinated, and there is no unified platform of databases and registries. Current legislation provides for the creation of local registers and cadasters that are populated according to different data parameters and in accordance with different terms of reference (“technical assignments”) for their creation, making their systematization and interoperation impossible. In addition to urban development, such related areas as land management, ecology and natural resources, cultural heritage protection, and real estate have their own separate types of documentation that define the conditions for urban development activities. This information and data are not combined in a single information space, which leads to separate, independent departmental permit issuance procedures, each of which is an additional obstacle to businesses and carries a significant corruption risk.
In terms of publicity of information in the field of urban development, the issue of urban development documentation remains problematic. Access to it is limited: not all urban development documentation is made public, and the one that is made public is not presented in full and mostly only in text form, while the graphic portion is only partly included and without the possibility of zooming in for detailed viewing. Therefore, when obtaining the initial data, in particular urban development conditions and restrictions, the applicant does not always have the opportunity to check whether urban development conditions and restrictions are compliant with the urban development documentation, and the ability of an official to interfere with the text of urban development conditions and restrictions is a significant corruption factor and creates the risk of illegal construction at all subsequent stages. Being merely a “projection” of the requirements of urban development documentation at the local level to a specific land plot, urban development conditions and restrictions have become a factor of pressure on the applicant, since it is the text of urban development conditions and restrictions that determines what conditions and restrictions must be observed during design and construction in general and what type of construction is possible. In addition, the possibility of manual interference with the text of urban development conditions and restrictions provides leads to the possibility of obtaining urban development conditions and restrictions that permit construction, even though this permission is not granted in urban development documentation.
Insufficient publicity of information in the field of urban development creates a situation in which it is possible to approve plans for spatial development of the territory (urban development documentation) and drastically different programs of socio-economic development of the territorial community in such territory. Also, the correspondence and mutual coherence of these two documents is not mandated by law. This leads to a situation in which different, inconsistent, and sometimes mutually exclusive strategies and policies can exist and be implemented at the level of a population center. Meanwhile, the existence of programs and policies in two different areas potentially carries major corruption risks, allows choosing the most favorable conditions outlined in such documents, while ignoring the requirements of the other documents, and creates a potential opportunity for unjust enrichment for government agencies and local self-government bodies.