In today's article from the series entitled "Tuesday Mornings for Construction Workers", we would like to introduce you to one of the latest interpretations of the Main Office of Building Control ("GUNB"), issued as part of the educational series entitled "Interesting Interpretations of GUNB", in which the office explains selected provisions of construction law that may raise doubts or divergent interpretations.
Today's question is: can a few entries in the construction log save a building permit from expiring? In practice, not necessarily, because authorities and courts primarily look at actual progress on the ground, not the appearance of activity.
When does the permit expire?
The Building Law stipulates that a building permit expires if construction has not commenced within three years of the date on which the decision became final, or if construction is interrupted for a period longer than three years (Article 37, Section 1 of the Building Law). The literature indicates that this is a substantive deadline, meaning that after its expiry, the investor loses the permit's entitlement, and further work may be treated as if it had been carried out without the required permit. Importantly, in practice, the authority usually confirms this effect in a separate administrative decision, as it must first determine whether a break/failure to commence work actually occurred within the meaning of the regulations.
Here a key trap appears: the investor thinks that "something is happening", but for the office it is important whether these were construction works that interrupt the running of the deadline, or whether they were only auxiliary or cleaning activities.
What is an “apparent continuation”?
The GUNB described a case in which the permit covered the construction of six segments, and inspections over the years revealed that no further steps beyond the foundations had been completed. A subsequent inspection revealed rather superficial activities: landscaping, mowing of grass and vegetation, application of fresh sand, and traces of soil near the foundations, suggesting cleaning.
At the same time, the construction log contained entries regarding, among other things, the construction of foundations, author's supervision, shrub planting, geodetic alignment, and "cleaning, security, and maintenance work." However, the Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw (ref. II OSK 564/15), dismissing the cassation appeal, confirmed that the entries themselves did not determine the continuation of construction, and that the process was interrupted by the unchanged technical condition and lack of progress between inspections. It explicitly stated that these entries were evidence of apparent activity and did not correspond to the actual progress of the investment.
To sum up, the construction log is important evidence, but not a shield – especially when the evidence resulting from the condition on the construction site (reports, photos, state of works) shows something different.
What does this mean in practice?
First, according to the regulations, the commencement of construction is considered to be the commencement of preparatory work on the construction site, and the list of these works (e.g., geodetic staking out, land leveling, site development, and connections for construction purposes) is derived from Article 41 of the Building Law. The list of preparatory works is generally considered closed, so "other activities" may not be considered the commencement of construction in the legal sense.
Secondly, a typical mistake is to confuse the investor's presence on the plot with the carrying out of works: tidying up, mowing, repairing the fence, securing the foundations or even planting greenery may be useful, but they may not interrupt the running of the 3-year period if construction is objectively at a standstill.
Thirdly, many investors assume that an entry in the construction log is sufficient, while it is emphasised that the log, despite its statutory definition, is subject to assessment like any other evidence, and the authority may (and often must) compare it with the inspection findings.
Therefore, not only should the content of entries in the construction log be taken care of, but work on the construction site should also actually be carried out.
Next changes: electronic construction log
It is also worth mentioning the electronic construction log (EDB), which is already operating in the IT system and can be kept instead of a paper log.
This deadline has already been extended, but currently, the paper construction log will be available until the end of 2029, after which, as a rule, only the electronic form will remain (with a few exceptions). Entities using the EDB point to the positive aspects of using the electronic log, pointing out that it helps organize the project progress (who entered what, when, and for participants) and facilitates the defense of the chronology of events. However, it will not replace actual fieldwork if the dispute concerns a break or lack of progress in construction.
In summary , the key issue is meeting deadlines, not only formally but also practically on the construction site. If there's a risk of permit expiration, a quick response and a sensible strategy are key, not impulsive, ad hoc . We've often helped our clients calmly analyze the facts and documents (permit, construction log), providing legal advice so the investor can bring the construction project to a successful conclusion.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of February 23, 2026.
Author:
Author / Editor of the series:
