2026 promises to be a new turning point in the legislative framework of Portuguese urban planning.

After two years of implementation of the 2024 Urbanistic Simplex, the Government has announced a profound reform of the system, promising a “second generation” of administrative simplification.

“This revision aims to correct operational dysfunctions of the previous model – namely, the heterogeneity of municipal application, the lack of digital interoperability, and the legal uncertainty generated by divergent interpretations of the reformed Legal Regime of Urbanization and Building (RJUE). However, what is presented as a mere technical update conceals a structural mutation of the very concept of urban planning licensing,” explains Mário Longras, senior associate for Real Estate at PRA – Raposo, Sá Miranda & Associados, in this article prepared for idealista/news.

According to the expert, the proposed legislative amendment, in addition to (further) shortening decision deadlines, foresees that most acts of urbanization and construction will move to a reinforced tacit authorization regime, in which administrative silence will acquire almost definitive force, even in the absence of external opinions.

“The declared goal is to eliminate ‘procedural entropy’ and accelerate investment. But behind the language of efficiency lies a deeper concern: the erosion of the principle of material legality and the weakening of prior public control. Urban planning licensing has always been an instrument of balance between private interests and collective values — territory, environment, heritage — and its replacement by a procedural automatism may compromise that equilibrium,” he highlights.

What is about to change?

From a digital perspective, the so-called PEPU (Electronic Platform for Urban Procedures) will come into effect next year, integrating, within a single system, the databases of DGPC, APA, ICNF, and CCDR. “It is an admirable ambition in theory but complex to execute in practice: interoperability requires not only technical compatibility but also the standardization of decision-making criteria and clarity regarding the hierarchy among binding opinions. The legislator seems to rely excessively on technology to solve essentially legal problems — such as the definition of deadlines, the scope of opinions, and liability in cases of electronic omission,” comments Mário Longras.

Another reform axis focuses on urban planning: it aims to introduce a mechanism of “automatic harmonization” among territorial management instruments, dispensing with formal revisions whenever sectoral changes occur. Although intended to reduce delays, this solution dilutes the structuring function of planning, transforming it into a constantly updated and unstable document. The legal certainty of private stakeholders — dependent on regulatory predictability — risks being replaced by a model of continuous and opaque adaptation.

Does administrative simplification pose risks?

The new Simplex also proposes to reinforce the valorization of consolidated urban areas and affordable housing through priority processing and tax benefits. However, this incentive policy may widen the gap between municipalities with greater technical and financial capacity and those where urban planning departments remain understaffed. Administrative simplification, when applied unevenly, is not synonymous with territorial equity — rather, it becomes a factor of asymmetry.

For legal practitioners, the 2026 regime will demand a new interpretative approach. The replacement of the licensing logic by that of direct technical responsibility shifts the center of gravity of public control to the domain of private self-verification, strengthening the role of designers and responsible technicians but also increasing the risk of future litigation. Normative clarity will be crucial to prevent “speed” from translating into heightened legal disputes.

At the political level, this reform fits within a narrative of modernization and trust in citizens, but its success will depend less on the rhetoric of simplification and more on the institutional capacity of the State. True digitalization is not merely the electronic submission of processes, but the reconfiguration of decision-making flows and administrative accountability.

“In sum, the Urbanistic Simplex 2026 is an ambitious attempt to rewrite the relationship between the State, municipalities, and citizens within the realm of urban planning. But the risk is that, in the name of speed, the essential may be sacrificed: the control of legality, the coherence of planning, and the protection of the public interest. Simplification cannot become a euphemism for deregulation. Time will tell whether this new cycle will, in fact, represent institutional progress — or merely another episode in the long history of reforms that promise much and deliver little,” concludes Mário Longras.