The legislative framework for spatial planning in Montenegro has undergone a turbulent two decades, passing through four transformative phases that have redefined construction and development practices in the country, reflecting broader political and economic trends, according to research by Institute Alternative.
The initial phase, defined by the 2008 Law on Spatial Planning and Construction of Structures, preserved a traditional “classical” hierarchy of planning documentation and a clear division of responsibilities between local self-governments and the state level. At the state level, strategic guidelines and overarching plans were defined, while the local level was responsible for their detailed elaboration and implementation through local plans, with mandatory alignment with state documents.
From 2010 to 2014, a trend of amendments to the Law began, gradually pushing the system toward centralisation, often justified by the “removal of business barriers” in the name of alleged efficiency.
The culmination of formal centralisation came with the 2017 Law on Spatial Planning and Construction of Structures, which remained in force until 2025. Its implementation was marked by lengthy transitional regimes and frequent ad hoc interventions, which, according to Institute Alternative (IA) research, clearly indicated challenges in implementing such a centralised model.
The most recent legislative shift, marked by the adoption of the Law on Spatial Organisation in the spring of 2025, signals a change in direction and an attempt at decentralisation.
“New Beginning” (2006–2010): Limited by the Lack of Regional Planning and Weak Local Capacities
Following the restoration of independence in 2006, Montenegro entered a period in which planning was institutionally stabilised through a new state framework and a new Spatial Plan of Montenegro (SPM), adopted for the period 2008–2020.
From 2008 to 2017, the legal framework was defined by the 2008 Law on Spatial Planning and Construction of Structures. This period was characterised by a traditional “classical” hierarchy of planning documentation between the state and local levels.
The state level was responsible for defining strategic and long-term guidelines for the development of the country’s entire territory. The Spatial Plan of Montenegro, the key and highest planning document, was adopted by the Parliament of Montenegro upon the Government’s proposal. The SPM defined national land-use purposes, infrastructure systems of national importance, and protected areas.
The local level was responsible for concretising and elaborating state guidelines within its administrative boundaries, as well as for issuing urban-technical conditions and building permits. Local self-governments adopted Spatial–Urban Plans, Detailed Urban Plans, Urban Design Projects, and Local Location Studies. Alignment with the SPM was mandatory, often requiring prior approval from the competent state ministry.
Under this model, municipalities formally led the preparation of local plans, while the competent ministry played a supervisory role. As early as one year after the adoption of the Law (2009), the Union of Municipalities pointed to problems such as complex procedures, significant discrepancies between plans at different levels and between neighboring municipalities, insufficient local capacities, and an unrealistic deadline for compliance with the Law (one year). At the same time, the Union proposed allowing private investors to finance local location studies—a proposal that was later accepted and expanded to other planning documents. The Union of Municipalities also suggested establishing a clearer hierarchy and alignment of planning documents, considering regional planning, strengthening state support to municipalities, improving public participation, and extending the deadline for the Law’s implementation.
Although the 2008 Law transferred responsibility for spatial planning to local self-governments, real decentralisation did not occur due to insufficient professional and financial capacities at the municipal level, as well as the absence of a regional planning tier.
As Sonja Dragović, an urban studies researcher at the University Institute of Lisbon and a member of the KANA / Who, If Not an Architect collective, told IA, structural problems were evident from the outset: a lack of reliable data, weak coordination among actors at different decision-making levels, insufficiently defined concepts of public and private interest and their interrelationship, as well as an imprecise definition of the public good.
In the context of decentralisation, Dragović adds: “Even during that period, it was clear that, formally, municipalities represented the lowest and most citizen-proximate level of governance, but in reality many of them—particularly in the less developed northern part of the country—lacked sufficient staff and resources to continuously produce and update planning documentation.”
Gradual Centralisation (2010–2014), Driven by Efficiency and the Removal of Business Barriers
Long-term strengthening of municipalities’ capacities for spatial planning failed to materialise in the period after 2008. The state’s focus shifted instead to “improving the business environment,” primarily through simplifying procedures for obtaining building permits. This intention was operationalised through the Land Administration and Management Project (LAMP), implemented with World Bank support from 2009 to 2016. Its main objective was to increase the efficiency of permit issuance and property registration.
Although nine Spatial–Urban Plans (PUPs) and 22 Detailed Urban Plans (DUPs) were adopted through this project in less developed municipalities in the northern and central regions of Montenegro, the state retained discretionary authority to intervene and adopt a local plan if a municipality failed to do so, or if the absence of a plan was allegedly deemed to threaten environmental protection or development opportunities. A key step toward centralisation—and toward weakening the primacy of the public interest in the planning process—was also the decision to allow private investors to finance the preparation of planning documents.
Amendments to the 2008 Law, adopted in 2013, significantly expanded the scope of private financing of planning documentation. While the 2008 Law permitted this practice only for urban design projects, the 2013 amendments extended it to a wide range of documents, including state-level plans (detailed spatial plans and state location studies) as well as local-level documents (detailed urban plans, urban design projects, and local location studies).
Overall, these reforms were characterised by increased participation of private capital, a concentration of decision-making power, and insufficiently developed local capacities for spatial planning.
“As argued at the time, these legislative amendments were adopted on the grounds that they would ‘compensate’ for the lack of local resources and accelerate procedures. In practice, however—as expected—they led to greater influence of private capital over planning, and consequently to greater privileges for private interests in planning outcomes, namely in what investors were allowed to build. More broadly, these amendments resulted in increased private-sector influence, greater centralisation in decision-making, and inadequate development of local capacities for spatial planning,” Dragović explains.
Planning Centralisation (2017): “The State Plans Everything”
The final shift toward overt centralisation came with the adoption of the Law on Spatial Planning and Construction of Structures in the autumn of 2017. The new legislative framework introduced only two planning documents: the Spatial Plan of Montenegro (strategic in nature, adopted for a period of 20 years) and the General Regulation Plan (GRP), a regulatory document adopted for 10 years, covering the entire territory of the state at a detailed level, including protected areas.
In essence, municipal spatial plans were abolished and decision-making was centralised within the line ministry at the state level. Public debate on the draft law was unusually intense: local self-governments (regardless of political affiliation), experts, and civil society organisations strongly contested the concept; more than 750 comments and questions were submitted, accompanied by a comprehensive report. However, this did not result in changes to the core idea of the law.
The law also introduced new actors and bodies (the Technical Conditions Authority and the Review Council, as well as the Chief State/City Architect), along with formal mechanisms that allowed municipalities to be “present” in the process—by appointing an authorised representative—yet without any substantive power to approve or block decisions.
Significant systemic changes followed, resulting in the abolition or radical modification of several instruments: building permits were replaced with construction notifications, inspection services were centralised, and the legalisation of illegal construction was integrated into the same legislative package regulating spatial planning and construction.
According to Dragović, the problem of centralisation was not only political but also operational. In an attempt to “bridge” procedures until the adoption of newly defined plans, the planning system, as she notes, effectively became “blurred” and often completely stalled.
Specifically, transitional provisions allowed old plans—including local plans, which the 2017 Law no longer even defined in its core text—and parts of the previous regulatory framework to remain in force until the adoption of the General Regulation Plan (GRP), which, under the law, was supposed to be adopted no later than 36 months, or three years, after the 2017 Law entered into force.
“Although this deadline was subsequently extended several times, the GRP was never completed. This delay produced a prolonged transitional period during which state authority expanded through temporary provisions. A particularly illustrative example is Article 218a of the Law on Spatial Planning and Construction of Structures (introduced through an amendment adopted in 2020), which grants the state the power to approve construction even in locations not ‘covered’ by valid detailed planning documentation,” Dragović explains.
This period was characterised by the absence of a systemic approach and a long-term strategy, with localised, ad hoc solutions to individual problems (“firefighting”) instead of the establishment of a comprehensive framework. It was also marked by “case-by-case decision-making,” that is, the absence of general rules and procedures, with each situation assessed individually.
Everything that occurred in connection with the 2017 Law, Dragović assesses, “resulted in the disorientation of the entire system: at the local level, construction largely relied on outdated local plans, while new procedures lagged behind. Necessary plans were adopted or amended under old rules and through shortened procedures. This led to the adoption of controversial plans and the approval of poor-quality projects, which in turn fueled public dissatisfaction and citizen protests.”
Officials at the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and State Property also agree that the system—or rather, the spatial planning policy—established by this law never fully took root, noting that “to a large extent, when it comes to spatial planning, this system functioned through transitional legal solutions.”
A large share of the changes that occurred in Montenegro’s overall development, the Ministry told IA, “were accompanied by consequences that directly affected space, bringing with them numerous highly complex problems and conflicts, thereby creating more difficult—or even limiting—conditions for the country’s further development.”
The 2025 Legislative Package: A Framework for an Attempt at Decentralisation
In the first part of 2025, in an effort to move away from the centralised model introduced in 2017, Montenegro adopted the Law on Spatial Organisation and the Law on Construction of Structures. The new Law on Spatial Organisation reintroduces local planning documents, thereby formally returning part of spatial planning authority to municipalities.
The new law introduces key changes in the preparation of planning documents: state-level plans are to be prepared by a state-owned enterprise established by the Government (the Spatial Planning Agency of Montenegro), while local plans are to be prepared by an enterprise established by the assembly of a local self-government unit (or jointly by several units). This division stems from the assessment that spatial organisation, as the most important resource, should fall under the exclusive competence of the state or, respectively, local self-government.
State planning documents include the Spatial Plan of Montenegro, spatial plans for areas of special purpose, and state detailed regulation plans, while local planning documents include spatial–urban plans, local detailed regulation plans, and urban design projects. In addition to preparing state plans, the Spatial Planning Agency of Montenegro is also responsible for reviewing local planning documents.
In exceptional cases, the Government may adopt local planning documents, but only if a local self-government fails to fulfill its obligations—resulting in harmful consequences, slowed development, or non-compliance with statutory duties—on the basis of an agreement with the local self-government unit and where this is necessary for the implementation of strategic investments of public interest. In such cases, the local plans are prepared by the state agency.
Officials at the Ministry claim that the Law on Spatial Organisation, adopted in 2025, has redefined spatial planning policy, particularly with regard to the decentralisation of responsibilities, the institutionalisation of planning document preparation, the reduction of administrative procedures in plan implementation, planning implementation instruments, construction land management, urban land consolidation, and the establishment of inspection oversight.
“When determining the entity responsible for preparing planning documents, the intention was to address shortcomings identified in previous practice by introducing significant new solutions in this segment of planning, which are expected to contribute to the adoption of high-quality and sustainable planning documents. This primarily refers to the need to institutionalise the preparation of planning documents, in the sense that their preparation falls under the exclusive responsibility of the state or local self-government, which establish enterprises to carry out these tasks,” representatives of the Ministry assert.
The new legislative solution is presented as having the potential to become a key mechanism for overcoming long-standing challenges at the local level in the field of spatial planning. How the law has been implemented in practice so far, as well as how decentralisation through the establishment of local enterprises is unfolding, will be examined by Institute Alternative in a separate study.
Author: Dragana Šćepanović
The research article was conducted as part of the project Civic Engagement for Better Local Governance, implemented by Institute Alternative with financial support from the European Union and co-financing from the Ministry of Regional–Investment Development and Cooperation with Non-Governmental Organisations. The views expressed in this research article do not necessarily reflect those of the donors.
The text was published in the print edition of Vijesti and is also available on the Vijesti news portal.