The amendment to the Monuments Protection Act entered into force on 3 June 2026. Discover the key changes affecting construction projects and investors.

1. INTRODUCTION

On 3 June 2026, the Act of 9 October 2025 amending the Act on the Protection and Guardianship of Monuments and Certain Other Acts (Journal of Laws of 2025, item 1673; the “Amending Act”) entered into force as part of the Government’s deregulation package. The amendment primarily modifies the Act of 23 July 2003 on the Protection and Guardianship of Monuments (“UOZ”), together with the Construction Law of 7 July 1994 (commonly known as “PrBud”) and the Nature Conservation Act of 16 April 2004 (“UOP”). The purpose of these amendments is to simplify and accelerate administrative procedures in the field of monument protection.

2. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE INSTEAD OF A MONUMENT CONSERVATION PERMIT – NEW ARTICLE 36AA OF THE MONUMENTS PROTECTION ACT

The most significant practical change is the introduction into the Monuments Protection Act of the notification procedure, allowing a matter to be resolved by the authority through tacit approval (i.e. by the absence of an objection to the notification), a mechanism previously known from the Construction Law. Under this procedure, instead of obtaining a standard monument conservation permit, an investor will notify the Voivodeship Monument Conservator (“WKZ”) of the intention to undertake specific activities relating to monuments. This procedure will now apply to the following activities:

• carrying out construction works within the surroundings of a monument, i.e. in the area surrounding or adjacent to a monument designated in the decision entering that area into the register of monuments for the purpose of protecting the monument’s visual values and safeguarding it against harmful external impacts;
• permanently relocating a movable monument entered into the register of monuments in a manner that interferes with the traditional interior arrangement in which the monument is situated;
• changing the purpose of a monument or the manner in which it is used;
• installing technical equipment, advertising boards or advertising devices, as well as inscriptions, on a monument;
• undertaking any other activities that could result in interference with the substance of, or alteration to the appearance of, a monument entered into the register of monuments (excluding the removal of trees and shrubs from a property that is not a registered park, garden or other form of designed greenery).

A regulation of the Minister of Culture and National Heritage (MKiDN), to be issued by 3 June 2027, will specify the detailed notification procedure, the data and information required in a notification, including the required attachments, as well as standard notification forms. Until the new regulation is issued, practical uncertainties may arise regarding the forms to be used and the scope of documentation required to accompany a notification.

Following submission of a notification, the WKZ has 60 days to raise an objection by way of an administrative decision. This period is therefore more than twice as long as the corresponding objection period under the Construction Law (21 days). In practice, it corresponds to the standard time limit for issuing a decision in particularly complex administrative matters under Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, which is generally applicable to proceedings concerning monument conservation permits. Furthermore, where the WKZ requires the notifying party to supplement missing documents or information, this period is interrupted, rather than merely suspended, and begins to run anew once the requested documents or information have been submitted. If the authority does not raise an objection within the statutory period, the notification is deemed accepted without reservations, and the investor may proceed with the notified activities (Article 36aa(3) and (4) of the Monuments Protection Act). Where the WKZ does not object, the notifying party may request a certificate confirming the absence of an objection. Such certificate must be attached to an application for a building permit or to a notification of construction works. The WKZ may also, ex officio and before expiry of the 60-day period, issue a certificate confirming that there are no grounds for raising an objection. Such certificate precludes the authority from subsequently objecting and entitles the investor to commence the notified activities before the expiry of the statutory period.

Whereas a decision granting a monument conservation permit is issued by the WKZ within the scope of administrative discretion, limited by the purpose of the Act, the evidence gathered in the proceedings, and the heritage values of the specific monument or area, the notification procedure expressly regulates both the circumstances in which the monument conservation authority is obliged to raise an objection and those in which it may do so at its discretion. Accordingly, the WKZ is required to raise an objection where:

• the notification concerns activities that require a monument conservation permit;
• the notification concerns activities that have already commenced or have already been completed, since the notification procedure cannot be used to legalise activities carried out unlawfully;
• the notified construction works are inconsistent with monument protection provisions contained in the local zoning plan, a zoning decision or a decision determining the location of a public purpose investment;
• the notified activities are inconsistent with the provisions of the so-called landscape resolution (Article 37a(1) of the Act of 27 March 2003 on Spatial Planning and Development);
• the notified activities violate the conditions, prohibitions or restrictions specified in the resolution establishing a cultural park;
• the notified activities would result in: (a) impairment of the heritage value of the monument, (b) damage to or destruction of the monument or (c) improper use of the monument;
• the WKZ required the notifying party to supplement missing documents or information, and the notifying party failed to comply within the prescribed time limit.

The WKZ may also raise an objection and, within the same decision, require the investor to obtain a standard monument conservation permit where the implementation of the notified activities could result in: (1) impairment of the heritage value of the monument, (2) damage to or destruction of the monument, (3) improper use of the monument or (4) a risk to the monument arising from theft, disappearance or unlawful export abroad. It should be assumed that, when determining whether the above grounds for an optional objection exist, the WKZ enjoys administrative discretion. Where an objection is raised in the above circumstances, the investor becomes obliged to obtain a monument conservation permit. Consequently, if an application for such a permit is subsequently submitted, the same matter will be examined again, potentially with a different outcome, in the permit proceedings.

The investor retains the right to choose. Instead of following the notification procedure, the investor may apply directly for a standard monument conservation permit. This may prove advantageous because a permit provides a stronger legal basis for carrying out the intended activities and is less susceptible to being challenged by the authority.

A notification to which the WKZ has not raised an objection remains valid for two years from the commencement date specified in the notification. If the notified activities are not commenced within that period, any subsequent commencement will require a new notification.

From the investor’s perspective, two supervisory mechanisms introduced simultaneously with the notification procedure are of particular importance. First, pursuant to Article 43(1a) of the Monuments Protection Act, the WKZ is required to issue a decision suspending activities carried out without the required notification, despite an objection having been raised or inconsistently with the submitted notification. Such decision expires two months after the date of its service if, within that period, the WKZ does not issue another decision: (1) ordering the restoration of the historic monument to its previous condition or the cleanup of the site within a specified time limit; or (2) imposing an obligation to obtain a permit to carry out the suspended activities (if such a permit is not obtained, the WKZ will issue a decision ordering the restoration of the historic monument to its previous condition or the cleanup of the site, or imposing an obligation to take specific actions to bring the historic monument to the best possible condition); or (3) prohibiting the continuation of suspended activities; or (4) imposing an obligation to take specific actions to restore the historic monument to the best possible condition within a specified time limit.

Secondly, Article 47(5)–(6) of the Monuments Protection Act authorises the WKZ to suspend activities carried out pursuant to a notification to which no objection has been raised where, during their execution, new facts or circumstances emerge that may result in damage to or destruction of the monument. Such suspension decision expires if, within the following two months, the WKZ does not issue a decision requiring the investor to obtain a monument conservation permit. This means that resolving a matter through tacit approval under the notification procedure provides the investor with a lower degree of legal certainty than a standard monument conservation permit. This should be taken into account when assessing both the benefits and the limitations of using this procedure.

The newly introduced Article 107da of the UOZ provides for an administrative fine ranging from PLN 500 to PLN 50,000 for carrying out construction works within the surroundings of a monument without the required notification, despite an objection having been raised or inconsistently with the submitted notification. The fine is imposed by the WKZ competent for the notification. The transitional provisions stipulate that this administrative sanction also applies to proceedings concerning infringements of the Monuments Protection Act that were initiated before the Amending Act entered into force, but only insofar as the infringement continues after that date.

3. A SINGLE DECISION FOR THE REMOVAL OF TREES AND SHRUBS FROM REGISTERED DESIGNED HISTORIC GREENERY

The second major amendment introduced by the Amending Act is the consolidation of the procedure governing the removal of trees or shrubs from a property, or part thereof, constituting a registered park, garden or other form of designed historic greenery. Previously, in order to remove such trees or shrubs, an investor was required to obtain two separate decisions from the WKZ in sequence: a monument conservation permit under Article 36(1)(1) or (11) of the UOZ and a permit authorising the removal of trees or shrubs under Article 83(1), in conjunction with Article 83a(1), of the UOP.  Following the entry into force of the amendment, the WKZ decides both matters in a single administrative decision – a monument conservation permit – issued pursuant to the newly introduced Article 36(1)(1b), in conjunction with Article 36(1aa), of the UOZ.

This consolidation covers two situations: (i) the issuance of a permit under Article 36(1)(1) of the UOZ for the removal of trees or shrubs as part of conservation or restoration works; and (ii) the issuance of a new type of permit under Article 36(1)(1b) of the UOZ for the removal of trees or shrubs for reasons other than carrying out such conservation or restoration works. In both cases, no permit under Article 83(1) of the UOP is issued, nor is any notification under Article 83f(4) of that Act required. The fee for the removal of trees or shrubs is determined in accordance with the rates specified in regulations issued pursuant to Article 85(4b) of the UOP. Of particular practical importance for utility network operators is the fact that the permit referred to in Article 36(1)(1b) of the UOZ may also be issued at the request of the owner of transmission infrastructure, rather than the owner of the land, where the tree or shrub poses a threat to the operation of that infrastructure (Article 36(5a) of the UOZ).

The consolidation applies exclusively to registered historic designed greenery. With respect to trees and shrubs growing on properties entered into the register of monuments but not constituting forms of designed greenery, only the regime under the Nature Conservation Act continues to apply. In such cases, the permit is issued by the WKZ pursuant to Article 83a of the UOP, while administrative sanctions for removal without a permit are imposed in accordance with Article 88 of the UOP.

From the perspective of construction investors, the newly introduced Article 36(1ac) of the UOZ is of particular importance. Where the removal of a tree or shrub is required for the implementation of an investment project requiring a building permit, a demolition permit or a notification of construction works, the permit authorising the removal of the tree or shrub may be executed only after the relevant building permit has first been obtained or an effective notification of the construction works conflicting with the trees or shrubs has been submitted. This requirement does not apply to linear public-purpose investments. Accordingly, obtaining a monument conservation permit authorising tree removal does not, in itself, entitle the holder to proceed with the actual felling until the relevant building permit has been issued and has become final, or an effective notification of the relevant construction works has been made.

In addition, the newly introduced Article 36(1ad) of the UOZ incorporates the five-year rule already known under the UOP. Accordingly, where a permit relating to the removal of a tree or shrub from the property of a natural person for purposes unrelated to business activity (benefiting from the exemption from the obligation to obtain a permit and pay the applicable fee) has become final, and within five years that person applies for a building permit or submits a notification of construction associated with a business activity on the same part of the property, the provisions of Article 83f(17)–(20) of the UOP shall apply accordingly, including the obligation to pay the fee for the removal of the tree or shrub.

4. RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTRUCTION LAW

The introduction of the notification procedure has also necessitated amendments to the Construction Law. Under the amended Article 39(1) of the PrBud, prior to the issuance of a building permit or the submission of a notification of construction works relating to a structure entered into the register of monuments or located within an area entered into the register, it is now necessary either to obtain a permit from the WKZ or to submit a notification to the WKZ to which no objection has been raised. Similarly, the amended Article 29(7) of the PrBud now allows an applicant, when applying for a building permit, to submit either a monument conservation permit issued by the WKZ or a certificate confirming that a notification has been accepted without objection. Furthermore, the amended Article 36a(5b)(2)(b) of the PrBud expands the category of non-material deviations from the approved design documentation to include cases where the deviation has been agreed with the WKZ also in relation to the content of a notification that has not been objected to. Proceedings initiated but not concluded before the entry into force of the Amending Act remain subject to the previous legal provisions.

5. ENTRY INTO FORCE AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

With respect to the amendments discussed above, the Amending Act entered into force on 3 June 2026. Particular importance should be attached to Article 5 of the Amending Act, pursuant to which the previous wording of the Monuments Protection Act continues to apply to activities for which a monument conservation permit had already been issued before the Act entered into force and  proceedings initiated but not concluded before that date, including the previously applicable requirements governing permits issued by the WKZ. Consequently, investors who submitted applications for monument conservation permits covering categories of activities that have now been transferred to the notification procedure will continue their proceedings under the previous legal regime. Existing permits and authorisations concerning the removal of trees and shrubs remain valid, and the conditions specified therein continue to be enforceable under the previous provisions. The amended provisions introduced by the Amending Act apply only to new cases initiated after its entry into force.

6. SUMMARY

From the perspective of entrepreneurs carrying out construction projects, the effects of the Amending Act should generally be assessed positively. The replacement of two separate administrative proceedings and the two corresponding decisions relating to the removal of trees and shrubs from registered historic properties (in the case of designed historic greenery) with a single administrative procedure is undoubtedly a sound solution. It genuinely shortens the time required to obtain the necessary administrative decision. However, it should be borne in mind that the actual removal of trees or shrubs will generally only be permissible after the relevant building permit has been obtained or an effective notification of the construction works conflicting with those trees or shrubs has been submitted. The introduction of the notification procedure for certain standard activities involving monuments, in particular construction works carried out within their surroundings, changes in the manner of their use, and the installation of advertising structures on monuments, is likewise a well-founded measure that may facilitate the implementation of investment projects.

Nevertheless, the exceptionally long period granted to the monument conservation authority for raising an objection gives rise to concerns. Moreover, this period is restarted each time the authority requests the investor to supplement the notification. As a result, in certain cases applying for a standard monument conservation permit – which remains available under the amended legislation – may prove more advantageous from a timing perspective. At the same time, such a permit is not subject to the risk of the notified activities subsequently being suspended if the authority later identifies new facts or circumstances that could result in damage to or destruction of the monument.

This consideration is likely to be particularly relevant during the first year following the entry into force of the amendment, when administrative practice relating to the notification procedure will still be developing. Furthermore, until the implementing regulation is adopted, the absence of detailed secondary legislation is likely to result in differing administrative practices among individual voivodeships, particularly with regard to the required content of notifications and the supporting documentation to be enclosed with them.

This article is intended solely for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The legal status described herein is current as of 23 June 2026.