Planning and approval procedures are overly specific and detailed. Individual approval processes have been developed for each type of infrastructure or facility, involving numerous procedural steps nestled within a myriad of special regulations. The intensity and density of these rules complicate planning and constructing urgently needed infrastructure. Consequently, procedures for planning and approving energy, broadband, transportation infrastructures, or industrial facilities span years or even decades, thereby hindering companies' ability to develop.

Every infrastructure project should ideally be planned according to uniform rules and regulations. Proven planning tools from special laws that can expedite processes, such as set deadlines, implied approvals or consents, digital planning documents, and public participation, should be integrated into the general administrative procedural law applicable to all planning processes.

The procedural stages should be reduced. One approach could be an integrated procedure for infrastructure projects (so-called "main procedure"). This would make it possible to eliminate individual procedural stages, such as route determination in the transport sector. For commercial settlements, the land-use planning procedure and the approval decision should be able to be consolidated into an integrated procedure. The integration of individual procedural stages into a main procedure can significantly shorten the duration of the procedures, as duplicate reports, public participation, and environmental assessments are eliminated.

The number of approval procedures should first be significantly reduced. Moreover, Germany could introduce "simplified" approval procedures for many industrial plants in line with European law, instead of the more elaborate "formal" approval procedures. Simple or smaller industrial plants should be approved under building law instead of the more cumbersome emission control procedures. In building law, the federal states – in addition to the exemption for rooftop expansions – should completely exempt other construction projects from procedures. Infrastructure changes – such as replacement construction of motorway bridges or the electrification of railway tracks – can also be exempted from approval procedures. To relieve companies and authorities and free up capacity for larger or more complex procedures, these opportunities for procedural relief should be utilised as much as possible in all approval areas. Companies should also increasingly be granted model or type approvals for comparable types of plants that apply to different locations.

Many laws stipulate deadlines for approval authorities to decide on applications. However, in practice, these deadlines are rarely met: frequent requests for additional documents, inadequate contributions from involved authorities or the absence of legal consequences for missed deadlines are among the reasons.

To ensure safer and more predictable investment decisions for businesses, all approval processes should be equipped with clear schedules and deadline rules. Required documents must be clearly specified, and their completeness should be confirmed in writing within two weeks. The determination of the substantive and legal situation should be based on the date of the authority's confirmation of receipt. To prevent delays from exceeding deadlines without consequences, legislators should introduce presumptions of approval or agreement. If an authority does not reject an application by the deadline, approval or consent will be deemed granted. Approved procedures would ensure predictability for businesses.

The principle of the "One-Stop-Shop" should apply across all approval laws: Applicants should only deal with one authority as a single point of contact for their project. This authority should conclusively check the competences of other authorities, independently collect decisions deemed necessary. (only available in German)

The public participation process should take place early and only once, in a more integrated and structured procedure (main procedure). A transparent dialogue is crucial to identify and resolve potential conflicts concerning the form and scope of the procedures at an early stage. Therefore, applicants should be able to freely choose the form and scope of participation. Subsequent formal hearing dates should be avoided. To handle potential conflicts, public participation should always be possible upon request by project developers, involving authorities. Strengthening preclusion, which excludes the consideration of objections submitted late, would accelerate procedures. Opinions, rights of opposition, and rights to file legal claims should ideally be restricted to individuals who are actually affected. The rights of affected property owners should, from the perspective of individual companies, be preserved to the greatest extent possible.

The European Union guidelines on nature, emission, or water protection hinder or prevent national efforts to accelerate procedures. This includes key date rules regarding applicable circumstances and law, preclusion, approval assumptions, or compensation and substitute measures. As a result, companies experience delays and legal uncertainty in their investment projects.

Applications, expert opinions, and plans should be continuously accessible and edited digitally throughout the entire process for applicants, involved authorities, and courts in case of litigation. This facilitates parallel operations by specialist authorities. The digitisation process should always aim for more efficient and faster procedures. Ideally, applications should be reviewed using AI solutions. Continuous digital involvement of public interest bodies as well as public participation should be enabled via a nationwide platform, with trade and business secrets being comprehensively protected.

A nationwide data portal could allow companies to integrate their specialist data and access geology, infrastructure facilities, or environmental data. This approach helps recognise project prerequisites more quickly and avoid duplicate checks of local conditions. Such data should be freely accessible based on open standards and interfaces. However, some companies believe that privately collected data should not be published.

To increase efficiency, the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry (IHK) proposes reducing the density of checks and extent of documentation required within administrative processes. Sampling and approval constraints are welcome alternatives to complete submissions. Pre-construction instruments and partial approvals should be utilized more extensively.

Checking sections of applications prior to their completion can expedite workstreams and enable concurrent approvals. Authorities could optionally harness the capacity of private planning offices with the project proponents' consent.

The personnel and technical resources of planning and approval bodies are often inadequate for prompt processing within current systems. Faster processing could be achieved even in the short term by eliminating or significantly simplifying procedures. Furthermore, digitalization has the potential to yield substantial positive impacts. Federal and state governments should compile and persistently monitor corresponding data (referencing section 'Digitalization and Digital Intra-Market').