A developer who contributes financially to the drafting of a spatial implementation plan may thereby jeopardize their integrated environmental permit. This follows a ruling by the Council for Permit Disputes dated September 17, 2026. The ruling addresses a practice that is widespread throughout Flanders.
The common practice
A Spatial Implementation Plan (‘Ruimtelijk Uitvoeringsplan’ or RUP) is the instrument through which a municipality, province, or the Flemish government determines the zoning of land and specifies exactly what may be built. In this sense, the RUP is the successor to the former regional plans and special development plans (‘Bijzonder Plan van Aanleg’ or BPA).
Drafting an RUP entails significant costs. This is due, in part, to the process guidance and the involvement of consulting firms for both the planning process and the mandatory environmental impact assessment (EIA).
Many municipalities therefore have these costs covered in whole or in part by the developer, who stands to benefit from the rezoning. This is typically done through a cooperation agreement between the municipality and the developer.
View of the Council for Permit Disputes
However, this common practice may conflict with Article 1.1.4 of the Flemish Spatial Planning Code (‘Vlaamse Codex Ruimtelijke Ordening’ or VCRO). That article stipulates that spatial planning must balance the needs of society as a whole, rather than primarily the interests of a single private party. This follows a ruling by the Council for Permit Disputes (‘Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen’ or RVVB) dated September 17, 2026 (RVVB-2627-0046).
In this case, the city of Antwerp, together with two developers, planned a residential project comprising 86 lots on the Hoekakker site in Ekeren-Donk. The underlying RUP dates from 2018 and was developed based on a master plan commissioned by the developers themselves.
To this end, the city and the developers entered into a cooperation agreement. The developers committed to financing the entire preparation of the RUP, including the costs of consulting firms, the EIA screening, and a portion of the city’s personnel costs. In the event of non-payment, the city could even suspend the project.
According to the Council, in such a case, it can no longer be considered a mere reimbursement of costs. After all, the cooperation agreement substantively linked the drafting of the RUP to the developers’ master plan and gave them a significant role in the planning process. This could have created the impression that their private interests were a determining factor in the RUP’s creation.
The Council therefore ruled that the RUP was inapplicable. Since the integrated environmental permit – i.e. the former urban planning permit and environmental permit combined – was based on that RUP, the permit was consequently revoked. The Flemish government must now make a new decision on the permit application within five months.
What does this mean for you?
Cooperation agreements in which a developer pays for all or part of a RUP are not an isolated phenomenon. Numerous municipalities in Flanders operate in a similar manner, especially in the case of larger private development projects that require rezoning.
If you are a developer or landowner considering contributing to the drafting of a RUP, be sure to have the cooperation agreement thoroughly reviewed by legal counsel before signing it. Even those who already hold a permit based on a RUP that was established in a similar manner would be wise to assess the legal risks. This also applies to municipalities that have entered into or are considering such agreements.
For those filing objections or appeals, this, in turn, offers a potentially new argument for successfully challenging an integrated environmental permit.
Andersen’s specialists at Team Real Estate are happy to assist you with advice on development issues, RUPs, and integrated environmental permits.
Authors:
- Matias Osorio Olivera, Counsel at Andersen
- Yves Sacreas, Senior Counsel at Andersen
