Information date: 22 October 2026 — On 5 June 2025 People's Daily reported that the CMC Chairman signed an order promulgating the Regulation on the Construction of Military Installations. For factory siting the operative framework remains the Military Facilities Protection Law, which establishes prohibited zones, controlled zones and security-control areas around military installations where construction, blasting and building height are restricted. Knowing that statement is not enough for an operating, research or compliance decision. The team must first establish who and what it applies to, how the effect reaches the real process, and which evidence would justify action.
Verified facts and scope
On 5 June 2025 People's Daily reported that the CMC Chairman signed an order promulgating the Regulation on the Construction of Military Installations. For factory siting the operative framework remains the Military Facilities Protection Law, which establishes prohibited zones, controlled zones and security-control areas around military installations where construction, blasting and building height are restricted.
Before committing to a plot, establish: distance and bearing relative to airfields, radar and communications sites, ports, fuel storage and training areas; whether the plot falls inside a prohibited or controlled zone or under an airfield clearance surface; what the local planning conditions say about maximum building height; and whether a military-facilities protection opinion is a precondition for planning permission on that plot.
How the effect reaches operations
The military opinion is a serial gate, not a parallel workstream: the planning authority will not issue the construction permit without it, and the inquiry routes through the local garrison or defence-mobilisation office to the relevant theatre command. Because zone boundaries and clearance surfaces are not published as maps, a desk study can only screen out obvious conflicts; the real answer arrives as a written reply whose timing the applicant does not control.
Signing a land transfer on the assumption that industrially zoned land is automatically clear. Other failures: a site that clears the horizontal distance but breaches an airfield approach height limit; blasting, quarrying or high-mast lighting near a storage site; and a construction programme that budgets zero weeks for a step capable of adding a full quarter.
For “Calculator: Military-Installation Proximity Screening — Setback Checks, Survey-Permit Steps and Added Weeks Before a Factory Construction Permit”, official rules or published findings, direct evidence from the relevant product or process, and assumptions that remain untested should be recorded separately. A broad source defines the external boundary; it does not replace batch records, protocols, contracts, labels or direct observations.
Decision
If the plot sits within the screening radius of any military site, lodge the written inquiry before due diligence closes and treat an adverse reply as a kill criterion. If the plot is outside all radii and the planning conditions carry no military annotation, document the screen and proceed. If clearance comes back conditional with a height cap, re-run the massing study before exchange.
Implementation checklist
- Run the proximity screen before signing anything binding on the land.
- Lodge the written military-facilities inquiry through the local defence-mobilisation office early.
- Model a four-to-twelve week allowance and re-test massing against any height cap.
- Assign one decision owner, one implementation owner and a dated review point for “Calculator: Military-Installation Proximity Screening — Setback Checks, Survey-Permit Steps and Added Weeks Before a Factory Construction Permit”.
- For “Calculator: Military-Installation Proximity Screening — Setback Checks, Survey-Permit Steps and Added Weeks Before a Factory Construction Permit”, archive the source page, access date, applicable population or entity, and internal evidence both supporting and opposing the current decision.
- When a rule, formulation, supplier, protocol or observed result changes, reopen only the affected question in “Calculator: Military-Installation Proximity Screening — Setback Checks, Survey-Permit Steps and Added Weeks Before a Factory Construction Permit”.
Evidence and review
For “Calculator: Military-Installation Proximity Screening — Setback Checks, Survey-Permit Steps and Added Weeks Before a Factory Construction Permit”, start with one real case rather than an abstract checklist. Record the input version, responsible owner, start time, observed result and stop condition. If the team cannot complete “Run the proximity screen before signing anything binding on the land.” with current evidence, it should not expand the process to more products, patients, suppliers or markets. The first review should focus only on facts capable of changing the decision.
The second control follows “Lodge the written military-facilities inquiry through the local defence-mobilisation office early.”. Keep the source date, applicable population or entity, deadline, cost effect and owner in the same evidence file. A wording preference does not justify a new version. A repeated discrepancy, an unsupported health claim or a regulatory mismatch does: correct that point and hold release until the evidence is available.
After “Model a four-to-twelve week allowance and re-test massing against any height cap.”, compare the intended outcome with what actually happened. Apply the same success criteria to each later expansion. If only one number, date or responsibility changes, update that field and the affected conclusion instead of recreating evidence that remains valid. This keeps the decision traceable without turning review into an open-ended rewrite cycle.
Limits of the conclusion
This calculator frame summarises public law and administrative practice; zone boundaries are site-specific and unpublished, so no estimate here substitutes for a written reply from the competent authority, and this is not legal or planning advice.
