Legislative work on the so-called Construction Code, which is to replace several currently applicable regulations, has been in progress for the past few years. Its purpose is to simplify the procedures and facilitate obtaining the requisite administrative permits. One of the reforms being implemented by the Construction Code involves the introduction of a single integrated permit, i.e. the so-called investment consent, which will replace: a building permit, preconstruction notification, notification with a building permit design and notification of change in use. Said consent is a sort of consolidated administrative resolution incorporating all of these decisions. The investment consent will be given by administration bodies by way of administrative decision or termination of proceedings without notice, otherwise called “silent consent.” Termination of proceedings without notice will be available to certain categories of less complex investment projects and will be an attempt at combating inaction of authorities and decreasing public administration costs. But will that indeed be the case? Silence of administration is already regulated in the Code of Administrative Procedure. Pursuant to its provisions (Article 122a et seq.),a matter shall be regarded as disposed of without notice and in a way that complies with the party’s demand in its entirety if, within one month of the day on which the demand was submitted to a relevant public administration authority or within another time limit defined in a specific provision, this authority has not issued a decision or order terminating proceedings in the matter (termination of proceedings without notice). However, the subsequent provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure oblige the authority to enter an annotation in the records on the disposal of the matter without notice, including the content and legal basis of the decision (Article 122e of the Code of Administrative Procedure). Furthermore, other provisions assume that it is possible to obtain a certificate of disposal of the matter without notice (in the form of a decision which is subject to complaint). Everything indicates that the above regulations will apply to the silent building consent. Thus, such a settlement method will most certainly not streamline the process as expected since, ultimately, the authority will not be able to remain inactive and will have to act after all. In these circumstances, it is worth considering whether it would not be appropriate to always require the authority to issue an administrative decision in matters as important as investment consent. The investor’s situation would be much clearer than the controversial silent consent. The Construction Code also stipulates the possibility of a decision approving the investment project design being granted to investors that do not hold any title to dispose of real estate for construction purposes. If the investor fails to obtain appropriate titles to real estate within one year, such a decision expires. This will allow the potential investor to achieve certainty with respect to the prospective investment project implementation even before the key decision is taken, e.g. before acquiring titles to real estate, and that solution should be regarded positively. The currently applicable procedures need to be simplified, which is the objective of the proposed changes. This will, furthermore, enable the administration bodies to adequately evaluate the significance of investment projects. Said changes are highly anticipated, and fingers are crossed that a well-written Construction Code will be published later this year.