{"id":156135,"date":"2024-11-08T14:02:09","date_gmt":"2024-11-08T12:02:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/serbiantimes.info\/en\/?p=156135"},"modified":"2024-11-08T14:36:38","modified_gmt":"2024-11-08T12:36:38","slug":"zeleznicka-u-novom-sadu-nije-jedina-ni-prokop-nema-upotrebnu-dozvolu-ovaj-dokument-sve-potvrdjuje","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/serbiantimes.info\/en\/zeleznicka-u-novom-sadu-nije-jedina-ni-prokop-nema-upotrebnu-dozvolu-ovaj-dokument-sve-potvrdjuje\/","title":{"rendered":"NOVI SAD STATION IS NOT THE ONLY ONE: Belgrade’s Prokop also lacks occupancy permit!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The new Belgrade <\/a>train station, known as Prokop, which was grandly opened by President Aleksandar Vu\u010di\u0107 last October, has been operating for a year without an occupancy permit. Officials rejected an application for an occupancy permit for this facility in October of this year. Moreover, the building is not even registered in the land registry.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Radomir Lazovi\u0107 from the Green-Left Front announced today that the main train station in Belgrade, better known as Prokop, currently does not have an occupancy permit. In the show “Iza vesti” on N1, he presented a document showing that the Ministry of Construction rejected the application as incomplete, submitted by “Infrastructure Railways of Serbia<\/a>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The document, dated October 4th of this year and available in the construction permit registry, states that the ministry rejected as incomplete the investor’s application, “Infrastructure Railways of Serbia,” for a decision approving the use of the completed works on the construction of the station building.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

View the document HERE<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As specified in the decision, this is a facility with a parking lot of 88 parking spaces, with a total area of 592.64 m2 on cadastral parcel no. 2855\/111 KO Savski venac, municipality of Savski venac, in the territory of the city of Belgrade, within the complex of the “Beograd centar” railway station in Belgrade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, as stated in the document, the investor Republic of Serbia – “Infrastructure Railways of Serbia” submitted, through the authorized “\u0160idprojekt” d.o.o, \u0160id, a request for a decision approving the use of the completed works described in the dispositive part of the decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inconsistencies and numerous shortcomings<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The decision, spanning five pages and over 20 points, lists all the shortcomings due to which the request was rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, it states that the Quality Control and Assurance Program and the Geodetic Marking and Geodetic Monitoring Project of the behavior of the soil and the object, which should be listed in the Main Notebook and in the Minutes of the Technical Inspection, were not attached.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, inconsistencies were found between the submitted and the projects listed in the Main Notebook, including the projects that were part of the Building Permit Decision and the projects listed in the Minutes of the Technical Inspection. The data in the Main Notebook on the listed projects also do not match the projects in the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ Decision on consent to the technical documentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, for all works, statements from the investor, the person performing the expert supervision, and the contractor were not submitted, as required by law, so it can be considered that none of the involved and responsible parties on the project stated that the facility was completed in the manner in which it was designed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the shortcomings due to which the request was rejected is the fact that in the report of the Technical Inspection Commission, the date of the formation of the Technical Inspection Commission and the date of the beginning of the technical inspection are not aligned in all places. It is also stated that in the report of the Technical Inspection Commission, it is necessary to align the dates of the trial operation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the decision, the names of the members of the Technical Inspection Commission, as well as their personal licenses, were omitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FIND OUT MORE:<\/mark><\/h4>\n\n\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t<\/iframe>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/figure>\n\n\t