The Urbanistic Simplex proposed for 2026, enshrined in Decree-Law no. 10/2024, appears as one of the most relevant legislative interventions in the field of urbanism in Portugal in recent decades. Designed with the ambition of simplifying procedures, speeding up licensing and reducing the administrative burden, this reform aims to respond to long-standing criticisms directed at the slowness of the system and its inability to keep up with contemporary economic and social dynamics.
In the context of 2026, its reformulation is awaited with high expectations – the practical application of Simplex Urbanístico has revealed a structural change in the way the State positions itself vis-à-vis individuals and municipalities. The transfer of responsibilities, the focus on declarative mechanisms and the strengthening of the role of private technicians reflect a clear political option: trusting more in citizens’ initiative and less in the prior intervention of public administration.
In a country where urban planning processes can drag on for years, the promise of greater predictability and speed is a decisive factor for investment, urban rehabilitation and the response to the housing crisis. Simplex thus emerges as an instrument aligned with the economic and social urgency of the present. This logic of reducing bureaucracy has obvious merits, but can it actually happen?
Simplification is not neutral. It’s hard to get. By reducing prior controls and replacing licenses with communications, the legislator shifts the axis of the system to an a posteriori inspection model. This movement raises serious questions about the effective capacity of local authorities to exercise this control, especially in a context of scarcity of human and technical resources.
In 2026, one of the central risks of the reform begins to become visible: the fragmentation of urban control. The diversity of municipal interpretations, combined with the growing technical complexity of projects, can generate territorial inequalities and legal uncertainty, precisely the opposite of what a simplification reform should achieve.
Another critical point lies in the excessive appreciation of the responsibility of the technical authors of the projects. Although the reinforcement of professional responsibility is positive in theory, in practice it can lead to an undue transfer of functions that belong to the State, namely ensuring compliance with territorial planning and public interest standards. As an architect, I know that it is extremely difficult to guarantee full compliance with all the wishes of a municipality, as regulations are interpreted and often in a different way than what we propose when we submit a project.
The relationship between municipalities and citizens is also changing. If, on the one hand, Simplex aims to bring administration closer to the user, on the other hand, it can weaken the capacity for municipal strategic planning, reducing urbanism to a sum of individual acts, disconnected from an integrated vision of the territory. Which in the long run works against the citizen, who ends up with a territory made up of small puzzle pieces that cannot be completed.
No less relevant is the impact of the reform on citizens’ trust. The perception that “everything is faster” can hide future conflicts, litigation and demolitions resulting from non-conformities detected late. Initial speed can, paradoxically, generate greater instability in the medium and long term.
In 2026, the debate no longer focuses only on the legislator’s intention, but on the concrete effects of the reform. Simplex Urbanístico requires a deep reflection on the balance between administrative efficiency and protection of the collective interest, in an area where errors are difficult to correct and have lasting impacts on the territory.
In conclusion, Simplex Urbanístico 2026 stands as an audacious attempt to redefine the relationship between the State, municipalities and citizens in the field of urbanism. It remains to be seen whether the search for speed will not compromise essential values such as legality, territorial coherence and public interest. Simplifying cannot mean giving up regulation. Only time will allow us to understand whether this reform will mark true institutional progress or whether it will be registered as yet another reformist promise with results below expectations.