Environmental permit applications often refer to planned infrastructure works, such as an intersection that is due to be redesigned or a new cycling connection in the pipeline. In a judgment of 20 August 2026, the Council for Permit Disputes has now set clear limits. Anyone whose permit rests on uncertain plans may be building on quicksand.
The case in brief
A Belgian investment company wants to develop a new 'Bioscape Campus', also known as Bioscape Antwerpen, on the University of Antwerp's Drie Eiken Campus in Edegem. The project involves a new research centre of approximately 28,000 m², comprising a single central community building of 9,987 m² and two accelerator buildings of 8,600 m² each, focused primarily on the life sciences.
On 5 September 2025, the Flemish Government, acting as the appeal authority, decided to grant a permit for the project, despite an unfavourable opinion from the Regional Environmental Permit Commission (GOVC) on, among other things, the mobility aspect. A local resident challenged the permit before the Council for Permit Disputes (RvVb).
By judgment of 20 August 2026 (No. RVVB-2526-1079), the Council annulled the permit on the ground that the mobility assessment had not been carried out with sufficient care. The Flemish Government must now take a new decision on the administrative appeal in the Bioscape file within three months.
Don't rely on uncertain future plans
In this case, the mobility impact report (MOBER) accompanying the application found that the intersection of Drie Eikenstraat and Doornstraat already suffers from traffic problems today, and that cyclist safety there needs improvement.
Both the MOBER and the subsequent permit decision downplayed this acknowledged problem by pointing to a future redevelopment of Doornstraat and the intersection, which would supposedly improve traffic flow and increase cycling safety.
However, that redevelopment had not yet been permitted. The file did not even show that a permit application had already been submitted for these planned infrastructure works. It was therefore uncertain whether, and when, the works would be carried out.
According to the Council, the Flemish Government could not simply rely on that. A mobility assessment must be based on existing and concrete facts that have been carefully established. A future and uncertain development cannot be treated as a settled fact when it forms an essential part of the assessment.
A parking solution must also be concrete
The project also provides for 296 car parking spaces. For day to day use, the MOBER calculated a need for 288 spaces. For larger events, however, the Flemish Government acknowledged that parking capacity was insufficient.
As a possible solution, the Government pointed to an existing car park on the Drie Eiken Campus, about 300 metres from the site. However, no concrete arrangements had yet been made with the University of Antwerp on the use of this car park. The Government itself stated that this still needed to be worked out further.
According to the Council, this too was insufficient. An existing parking problem cannot be regarded as resolved simply by pointing to a solution that still has to be discussed and for which the file contains no concrete arrangements.
The practical lesson
The regulations require that a project's mobility assessment be based on sufficiently concrete data, carefully established.
For future infrastructure works, this means above all that the more important the planned works are to the mobility assessment, the more important it is that their execution is sufficiently certain and concrete.
The same applies to solutions that depend on third parties. If a project relies on a car park, infrastructure or other measure provided by another party, for example, it must be clear that this solution will actually be available.
What does this mean for you?
For projects with a significant traffic or parking impact, it is not enough for a MOBER to refer to what might happen in the future.
You should therefore map out in good time:
- which infrastructure works are necessary for an acceptable mobility impact;
- how certain their execution is; and
- whether arrangements with third parties have actually been made and can be demonstrated in the permit file.
For permit-granting authorities, the message is that a favourable mobility assessment must be based on concrete, verifiable data, not on still-uncertain future plans.
Authors:
- Matias Osorio Olivera, Counsel at Andersen in Belgium
- Yves Sacreas, Senior Counsel at Andersen in Belgium
