What an Integrated Investment Plan (IIP) is, more than two years after the entry into force of the amendment that introduced this tool into the Law on Planning and Spatial Development, does not need to be explained to anyone. What is less common, however, is knowledge of how the tool works in practice. So far, relatively few ZPIs have been enacted, with a few exceptions mostly in smaller municipalities¹, and the land use changes made with them are intended to allow for the construction of RES: photovoltaic installations (PV, ESS)², wind power plants³, and service facilities (warehousing and retail, vehicle service⁴, tourist facilities⁵) and manufacturing⁶. The MIP was originally seen as a tool that would, among other things, help free up more land for residential development, but to date there are few MIPs enacted that indicate residential development⁷ as the main investment. Which is not to say that this will not change.
Pawel PUCHER - attorney with international experience, founding partner of Kaczor Klimczyk Pucher Wypiór Lawyers (KKPW). Expert in the field of planning and zoning, construction investments and real estate market. For more than 25 years, he has provided comprehensive services for Polish and foreign commercial, development, infrastructure and industrial investments. Directs audits of enterprises and real estate. Advises municipalities on ZPI matters and represents investors in ZPI proceedings. Author of numerous publications on ZPI. KKPW is a well-established law firm operating since 2001, offering comprehensive legal and tax services. KKPW's services are provided nationwide to entrepreneurs of all industries from Poland and abroad, especially from the German-speaking area. KKPW's leading specializations include services for companies in the real estate and energy sectors. KKPW's experts are valued especially for their extensive experience and success in supporting clients implementing construction projects: infrastructure, commercial, services, retail, as well as residential.
The number of MIPs enacted does not reflect the scale of interest in this tool. The number of ZPI applications submitted, at various stages of the proceedings and in a great many cases involving residential construction, is really quite large, with interest in ZPI and willingness to use ZPI distributed very unevenly across the country, and the approach to this tool varies from city to city[⁸]. A wait-and-see atmosphere is noticeable, and this is true on the part of both city managers and investors. Many, instead of facing the challenge and trying to carry out the MIP procedure or submit an application, are waiting and watching to see what the fate of the first applications will be, what results they will produce and, finally, what kind of reception they will meet with.
One of the places where I think the potential of ZPI has been recognized is Krakow, where this tool is being looked at more and more favorably. However, before I go on to indicate how the ZPI procedure is being applied in Krakow, it is worth updating information on the legal status.
The changing legal status
In the final stage of the legislative process,[⁹] another amendment to the provisions of the Law on Planning and Spatial Development regarding MIP has appeared, which is to introduce the possibility for the municipal council to establish, in the form of a resolution constituting a local law, the rules for determining the provisions of urban planning agreements. It can be said that this will be a partial sanctioning of the solution already adopted in Krakow, where, however, in the absence of a clear legal basis, it functions as an optional mechanism introduced by an ordinance of the mayor (more on this later).
Work is underway on another amendment to the MIP regulation, which will address more issues in the area of MIP[¹⁰]. The purpose of this amendment is to remove some of the shortcomings of the ZPI procedure. In light of the current state of the draft of this amendment, the changes to the MIP procedure are to consist of: expanding and making more flexible the catalog of supplementary investments; clarifying that the MIP, in addition to the area of the main investment and the supplementary investment, may also include other areas; abandoning the need to include the area of the supplementary investment in the MIP when it is possible to implement it on the basis of another valid local plan; andthe area of a supplementary investment when it can be carried out on the basis of another local plan in force; clarification of what spatial data should be included in the MIP project attached by the investor to the application for its enactment; extension from three working days to fourteen days of the deadline for verification by the mayor of a municipality, mayor or city president of the received application for enactment of MIP.
Each of these proposed amendments responds to objections raised by practitioners, whose voice, however, has not been fully heard. The overly narrow definition of the catalog of complementary investments was pointed out in the regulations under discussion even before they came into force. The proposed change (removal of the condition that a complementary investment belonging to the catalog of the municipality's own tasks indicated in the provision is to serve the main investment, with the exception of facilities for commercial or service purposes, where this requirement was left in place) goes in the right direction, but is still insufficient for unknown reasons. This is because there is still no decision to expand the catalog of complementary investments to include the realization of housing or protective facilities, despite the fact that precisely in these areas one can speak of the greatest needs.
It is also worth mentioning that at this stage of work on the amendment, it was decided to abandon the previously proposed change, which was to deprive the city council of the right to decide on the initiation of ZPI proceedings. Although, as experience shows, leaving the decision in this regard to a collegial (often political) body neither facilitates nor speeds up the entire process, I also believe that the decision to initiate a ZPI should remain with the city council. Ultimately, after all, it is the municipal council that decides whether to adopt or reject the ZPI, and the involvement of councilors at the initial stage, as well as the right of participation of a council representative in the ZPI negotiations, guarantee a much better flow of information, the proceeding of only those ZPIs that have a real chance of being adopted by the council, as well as ongoing influence on the formation of the ZPI.
How is it done in Krakow?
So far, Krakow has had a largely deserved reputation as a conservative city in its approach to new solutions. However, it must be admitted that when it comes to ZPI, Krakow compares favorably with other, especially large cities, and is even becoming a leader in ZPI readiness. This is not confirmed by statistics, as no MIP has yet been enacted in Krakow, but there is a lot going on in Krakow, and the first MIPs are likely to appear in a few months. According to the current state of affairs, roughly 10 ZPIs have been started[¹¹] in Krakow, and there is even a case of combining several ZPI applications for joint consideration. A similar number of applications have been rejected at the initial stage (which does not mean that investors cannot renew their applications in a more or less modified form), a few have been received by the city hall but have not yet been verified, and at least a dozen more are already being prepared by investors.
The vast majority of Krakow's MIP applications are directed at allowing multifamily development in areas where, according to local zoning plans, this is not possible, but is allowed by the current study of land use conditions and directions. This trend, given the chronic shortage of investment land and the still good profitability of residential investments, is completely understandable, and also positive, given the deficits in the area of meeting housing needs.
Negotiations are currently underway between the municipal side and investors on the details of the ZPI and urban planning agreements. With the participation of the relevant city departments and units, the details of complementary investments (a necessary element of MIP) and other benefits expected by the City in connection with or in exchange for the adoption of MIP are being clarified. It can be expected that the results of these negotiations in the form of MIP drafts, including proposals for supplementary investments, will soon be submitted to the public for opinions, agreements and consultations. For the time being, the negotiations concern MIP proposals, in several cases interesting and associated with attractive complementary investments and other benefits for the city, but covering relatively small areas. There are also much larger projects in the queue - as to the area and scope of the main investments, and thus the type and scope of complementary investments. Such projects, thanks to their scale, provide an unprecedented opportunity for transparent, holistic planning for the development of significant portions of the city, with the concomitant possibility of creating not only a framework for a full-fledged urban fabric, but also for the city to obtain significant additional benefits that can be established in the course of negotiations.
In Krakow, investors are increasingly eager to take advantage of the opportunity to consult the prepared MIP in advance (even before the formal submission of the application) with the MIP task force established at the city hall. This possibility is provided for by a special procedure introduced by an order of the mayor[¹²]. It is worth recalling that also in this matter, i.e. the regulation of the MIP procedure, especially the phase preceding the submission of the MIP application, Krakow is a forerunner; Warsaw has also already adopted its procedure[¹³].
Krakow can improve the MIP procedure
Based on the experience to date in applying the ZPI procedure in Krakow, it is worth thinking about a solution that would allow, at the earliest possible stage, to better coordinate the position of the executive (the mayor, the spatial planning department, the ZPI task force, etc.) with regard to the expectations towards the ZPI procedure. ZPI) in terms of expectations for investors applying for ZPI, the required minimum parameters and development indicators with the expectations and position of the city council. This would reduce the unpredictability of the initial position of the councilors, streamline the process of preparing an application for ZPI and a draft ZPI with such content that gives the best chance of a positive decision to proceed with ZPI, as well as starting negotiations on the best possible initial basis. In the realities of Krakow's ZPI procedure (which formulates baseline expectations in terms of the value of the complementary investment and the needs of individual neighborhoods), it would be a matter of, for example, including a representative of the city council, perhaps a representative of the city council's spatial planning commission, in theZPI pre-consultation process through his participation in some of the work of the ZPI task force, or by introducing into the pre-consultation process also consultation with this committee or other relevant council committees.
The problem that investors point to is the protractedness of the ZPI[¹⁴] process. This is somewhat of a paradox, because let's recall that the legislator designed the ZPI procedure as a special, expedited procedure for the adoption or amendment of a local zoning plan at the request of an investor in exchange for a certain benefitin exchange for a certain benefit, significantly shortening the statutory deadlines for the process of opinion, agreement and consultation on the draft plan, or introducing very short deadlines for the mayor to forward the formally verified application to the city council. Unfortunately, the law lacked a time limit for the council to deal with the MIP application from the moment it receives it from the mayor (in order to decide whether to proceed with its preparation), or to specify the duration of negotiations and thepreparation of the final draft of the MIP and the draft urban planning agreement, nor, finally, the deadline by which the council should pass a resolution approving or rejecting the MIP after the (conditional) urban planning agreement with the draft MIP attached has been concluded. This shortcoming could be mitigated by introducing, precisely in the local procedure, at least instructional deadlines within which the city council should pronounce on whether to proceed with thedrawing up the MIP after receiving the mayor's MIP application, within which time the negotiations with the investor should end, and the deadline for the council to decide whether to accept or reject the MIP.
It would also be useful to establish model provisions for the urban planning agreement, or at least guidelines or rules for drafting such an agreement (e.g., with regard to the required collateral; guidelines for determining the scope of the investor's benefits to the municipality are already in the ordinance of the mayor of Krakow), to give investors a better idea of the shape of the future agreement with the City and its main terms, and to increase the transparency of the entire process. If the amendment to the law I mentioned in the introduction comes into force, this could even take the form of a resolution of the city council with the effects of local law (it would be goodbe the fruit of joint work between the council and the mayor, and not an act that will conflict with existing ordinances and established practice in this regard).
Finally, more standardization of the presentation of the architectural and urban planning concept of the intended main and supplementary investment, as was done in the instruction introduced in Warsaw, is also something to consider. The procedure adopted for the ZPI in Krakow[¹⁵] describes very well what can be required of the investor at the stage of presenting the investment concept, but in practice it leaves investors free to do as they wish.in this regard, which may prove to be a problem especially at the stage of formal consultations of MIP projects, which as to the scope and form of presentation of their assumptions may look very different.
Taking into account the fact that MIP is a tool that is still in the making, a regular (e.g., annual) element of the MIP procedure should be not only updating the catalog of neighborhood needs (in the context of possible supplementary investments), but also evaluating the MIP procedure itself and - on this basis - correcting, adjusting and improving it. At present, a contribution to updating the MIP procedure could come from the first experience of its application and the previously mentioned changes in the MIP regulations.
Certainly, a good time for a more complete evaluation of MIP's functioning will be after the first MIP in Krakow has been successfully enacted - which will hopefully happen as soon as possible, although quality is more important than speed. This is because, despite the relatively small number of resolutions of municipal councils concerning ZPI in Poland, there have already been revocations, by governors, in the mode of control of compliance with the law (the so-called supervisory decisions), of both resolutions on accession to the preparation of ZPI[¹⁶] and resolutions approving ZPI[¹⁷]. And this is something we would prefer to avoid in Krakow.
It should also be remembered that investors preparing ZPI applications, both in Krakow and in other municipalities in Poland, have so far based them for the most part on the provisions of the zoning study, with which the ZPI must remain in harmony[¹⁸]. However, this applies only to those ZPIs requested before the municipality's general plan (PGP) comes into effect, and whose drafts live to see their first consultation before the PGP comes out. Other MIPs will already have to comply with the POG, the draft of which, let alone its final content, is not known. Without this knowledge, it is impossible to forecast whether the POG will prove to be a game changer for ZPI.
Pawel PUCHER
more: A&B 1/2026 - Estates,
download free e-issues of A&B
[1] Of the larger cities, Lublin is an exception - Resolution No. 507/Xv/2025 of the Lublin City Council of October 20, 2025. (Official Gazette of Lubelskie Voivodeship 27.11.2025, item 5166); Resolution No. 424/XIII/2025 of the Lublin City Council of September 4, 2025. (Urz. Woj. Lubel. of 24.09.2025, item 4207) (over 100 ha).
[2] E.g.: in the municipality of Elbląg (Resolution No. XII/96/2025 of the Elbląg Municipality Council of May 15, 2025, Dz. Woj. Warm. Mazow. of 30.07.2025, item 2996), in the municipality of Łuków (Resolution No. VI/39/2024 of the Łuków Municipality Council of 30 August 2024, Dz. Urz. Woj. Lub. of 4.10.2024, item 4761), in the municipality of Żuromin (Resolution No. 107/Xiv/25 of the Municipal Council in Żuromin dated June 25, 2025, Dz. Urz. Woj, Mazow. of 16.07.2025, item 6722), Resolution No. XX/181/2025 of the Municipal Council of Tomaszów Lubelski of 16 October 2025, Dz. Urz. Woj. Lubel. of 28.10.2025, item 4614.
[3] E.g. Resolution No. XIII/84/2025 of the Korfantow Municipal Council of March 26, 2025. (not legally binding).
[4] E.g. the Municipality of Płock (Resolution No. 263/Xiv/2025 of the City Council of the City of Płock dated May 22, 2025, Official Gazette of Mazowieckie Voivodeship dated May 29, 2025, item 5214).
[5] Resolution No. Xii/118/25 of the City Council of Trzebiatów dated March 26, 2025. (Urz. Woj. Zach-Pom. of 3.04.2025, item 1641).
[6] ibid.
[7] E.g. ZPI in Kołbaskowo (Resolution No. Xii/138/2025 of the Kolbaskowo Municipality Council, Dz. Woj. Zach-Pom. of 4.06.2025, item 2621).
[8] It is clear that there is less interest in ZPI in those cities that continue to use the housing specs law (which will soon no longer be possible).
[9] Draft (Print No. 1608) after the third reading at the session of the Sejm on December 4, 2025, https://www.sejm.gov.pl/Sejm10.nsf/PrzebiegProc.xsp?nr=1608 (accessed December 8, 2025).
[10] Government draft UD316 - at public consultation stage, https://legislacja.gov.pl/projekt/12403752/katalog/13166827#13166827 (accessed 8.12.2025).
[11] That is, the resolution of the RMK to proceed with the drafting of the MIP has been passed; there are more applications that have been formally verified initially, but are awaiting a decision on whether to proceed further.
[12] Ordinance of the Mayor of the City of Krakow dated 2024-10-17 No. 2715 on the appointment of the Task Team for the negotiations on the content of the draft urban planning agreement and the draft integrated investment plan, as amended by Order of 2024-11-22 No. 3010, and Order of the Mayor of the City of Krakow of 2024-10-17 No. 2716 on theon Determining the Preferred Needs of the Municipality of Krakow in Negotiating the Draft Urban Planning Agreement and the Draft Integrated Investment Plan in the Proceedings of the Application for an Integrated Investment Plan, as amended by Order of 2024-11-22 No. 3011.
[13] Instruction of the Mayor of the City of Warsaw on the Principles for Preparing an Integrated Investment Plan dated March 10, 2025, and Instruction of the Mayor of the City of Warsaw on the Principles for Determining the Scope of Supplementary Investments to the Application for an Integrated Investment Plan as the Basis for the Scope of the Urban Development Agreement dated July 6, 2025.
[14] Many of the applications I have indicated have been waiting for months for a decision to proceed with the preparation of the MIP, which from the formal side is only the first necessary step, the record holders will soon "celebrate" the anniversary of the MIP procedure; of course, the reasons for this state of affairs are complex.
[15] BP-5 procedure for the submission of an integrated investment plan application, https://www.bip.krakow.pl/uslugi/BP-5 (accessed 8.12.2025).
[16] Supervisory decision of the Opolskie Voivode dated April 29, 2025, marked: IN.VII.743.2.1.2025.MZ, stating the invalidity of Resolution No. XIII/84/2025 of the Korfantow City Council of March 26, 2025, appealed to the WSA.
[17] Supervisory Resolution No. P-II.4131.2.305.2025 of the Podkarpackie Governor dated October 3, 2025. (Urz. Woj. Podkarp. Z 6.10.2025, item 3775); Supervisory Resolution No. WP-I.4131.140.2025 of the Mazovian Governor of July 14, 2025, (Urz. Woj. Mazow. Z 15.07.2025, item 6707).
[18] The exception is the municipality of Pyskowice, where the MIP has already been adopted on the basis of the adopted POG, Resolution No. XXI/159/2025 of the Municipal Council of Pyskowice dated October 23, 2025. (Official Gazette of the Silesian Voivodeship of 30.10.2025, item 6036).
