{"id":33757,"date":"2026-06-29T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-29T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/?p=33757"},"modified":"2026-06-26T14:34:36","modified_gmt":"2026-06-26T12:34:36","slug":"the-importance-of-a-watertight-application-dossier-for-an-environmental-permit-there-is-no-room-for-error","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/en\/het-belang-van-een-waterdicht-aanvraagdossier-omgevingsvergunning-geen-marge-voor-fouten\/","title":{"rendered":"The importance of a watertight application for an environmental permit: there is no room for error"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When submitting an application for an environmental permit, urban planning regulations are often dealt with pragmatically. If a project does not perfectly comply with the regulations of a Spatial Implementation Plan (RUP) or a by-law, the possibility of obtaining a derogation is explored. A recent and guiding <strong>judgement of the Council for the Review of Licensing Decisions (RvVb) of 7 May 2026 (No. RVVB-2526-0770)<\/strong> reminds us, however, that there is no margin for error.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-interactive=\"core\/file\" class=\"wp-block-file\"><object data-wp-bind--hidden=\"!state.hasPdfPreview\" hidden class=\"wp-block-file__embed\" data=\"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/app\/uploads\/2026\/06\/RVVB.2526.0770-1.pdf\" type=\"application\/pdf\" style=\"width:100%;height:600px\" aria-label=\"Embed of RVVB.2526.0770 (1).\"><\/object><a id=\"wp-block-file--media-50be0037-d128-405d-8161-4f547eb3ad79\" href=\"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/app\/uploads\/2026\/06\/RVVB.2526.0770-1.pdf\">RVVB.2526.0770 (1)<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/app\/uploads\/2026\/06\/RVVB.2526.0770-1.pdf\" class=\"wp-block-file__button wp-element-button\" download aria-describedby=\"wp-block-file--media-50be0037-d128-405d-8161-4f547eb3ad79\">Download<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The key message for the property and construction sectors is clear: the government can only grant an exemption if the applicant has justified it in advance, explicitly and on the correct legal basis. If this is not done, the government is legally powerless and the planning permission must be refused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The case: accumulation of unjustified discrepancies in the application dossier for an environmental permit<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The case concerns an environmental planning permission granted on appeal by the Provincial Executive of Limburg for the construction of a detached house in Genk. The project was situated within the \u2018Kernwinkelgebied\u2019 Regional Urban Development Plan (RUP). A local resident took the matter to the Council for the Resolution of Planning Disputes and hit the nail on the head: the project deviated from the town planning regulations in numerous respects (including those relating to roof shape, building height, degree of paving and plot enclosure), without these deviations having been properly applied for or substantiated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The licensing authority had attempted to iron out these issues in its decision-making process by setting out its own reasons as to why the deviations were \u201climited in nature\u201d, or by imposing corrective conditions. The Council, however, put an end to this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Article 4.4.1\/0 VCRO: it is now up to the applicant<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The crux of the judgement is the strict application of Article 4.4.1\/0 of the Flemish Spatial Planning Code (VCRO). This general provision was introduced by decree of 17 May 2024 and states unequivocally:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>\u201cThe exemptions set out in this chapter may only be applied at the reasoned request of the licence applicant.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It is clear from the parliamentary preparatory work that this provision was deliberately introduced to improve efficiency. It is not the role of the licensing authority to search through the file itself for applicable derogation provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the judgment in question, the Council found that the application file contained fundamental defects:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Missing applications<\/strong>: There was no evidence whatsoever of a formal request or justification from the applicant regarding the use of non-standard materials, the height of the boundary wall or the exceeding of the maximum degree of hardening. The authorities should therefore simply not have permitted these deviations.<br><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Incorrect legal basis:<\/strong> With regard to the deviation from the roof shape (a flat roof instead of the prescribed pitched roof), the applicant based his justification on the argument that the RUP was more than 15 years old. In doing so, the applicant confused the legal provisions governing Special Development Plans (BPA\u2019s) with those of a RUP. After all, no such exemption provision on the grounds of age exists for a RUP. The Council therefore ruled that there was no \u2018substantiated request\u2019 within the meaning of the law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The purely quantitative and urban planning misconception on the part of public authorities<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Furthermore, the judgment contains an important lesson for licensing authorities. The Council noted, merely as an aside, that the provincial executive had failed to provide sufficient justification for the \u201climited nature\u201d of the derogations (as required by Article 4.4.1(1) of the VCRO).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Boards all too often fall into two classic pitfalls:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>A purely quantitative approach<\/strong>: It is not sufficient to state that exceeding the building height by \u201conly 29 cm\u201d or paving an area of \u201conly 2%\u201d is automatically limited. The discrepancy must be interpreted in qualitative terms in the light of the objectives of the regulation.<br><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>The confusion with \u2018good spatial planning\u2019<\/strong>\u2018: The argument that a flat roof is more in keeping with the neighbouring building from an aesthetic point of view is one that falls within the scope of the test of sound spatial planning. However, it does not demonstrate whether or not the derogation undermines the regulation itself (and the essential choices made by the planning authority). The limited nature of the derogation must be demonstrated in relation to the regulation, not merely in relation to the actual surroundings.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Finally, the Council points out that the cumulative effect of derogations must also be explicitly examined. Even if each derogation is limited in itself, the combined effect of all the derogations may completely undermine the ratio legis of the RUP. A mere formal statement in the decision that the cumulative effects are \u201climited\u201d is legally insufficient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/en\/deviating-from-planning-regulations\/\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/afwijken-van-stedenbouwkundige-voorschriften\/\"><strong>Find out more about exemptions from town planning regulations.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Conclusion: a thorough pre-screening is essential for your application for an environmental permit<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This judgment unequivocally sets out the legal framework of the planning permission process. As an applicant (or your architect\/adviser), you must never assume that the authorities will rectify any omissions in your application for a planning exemption or address them through planning conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Any deviation \u2013 however slight \u2013 must, from the outset (ab initio):<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Explicitly identified as a deviation;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Be given specific and well-reasoned explanations;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Seats on the exact legal basis within the VCRO.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A thorough, preliminary screening of the planning application to ensure compliance with all regulatory requirements is therefore the only way to avoid legal proceedings, wasted time and, ultimately, the application being quashed by the Planning Appeals Board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Do you have any questions about the compliance of your planning permission application, or would you like a strategic review of your application before submitting it? Please contact <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/en\/contact\/\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"www.confianz.be\/contact\">contact <\/a><\/strong>Contact Confianz for specialist urban planning and legal advice.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Application dossier for an environmental permit: a derogation is only permitted if it has been justified in advance, explicitly and on the correct legal basis.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":33761,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[146,126],"tags":[985],"class_list":["post-33757","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-omgevingsvergunning-aanvragen","category-belgie-vastgoedrecht","tag-aanvraagdossier-omgevingsvergunning"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33757","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33757"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33757\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33763,"href":"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33757\/revisions\/33763"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/33761"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.confianz.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}