Estimated reading time (in minutes)
In response to an overly liberal jurisprudential conception of the interest in acting in matters of town planning, the legislator defined its contours in 2013 (article L. 600-1-2 of the town planning code).
Codification of the interest in contesting planning permissions
Apart from the State, local authorities and associations, any person wishing to exercise an appeal against an authorization to build, demolish or develop must justify that the construction, development or works “are likely to directly affect the conditions of occupation, use or enjoyment of the property…”.
This codification of the definition of the interest in bringing proceedings has thus considerably tightened the conditions of admissibility of the appeal challenging the town planning authorizations since previously, the mere proximity to the neighboring project was enough to give the applicant an interest in bringing proceedings.
Initially, the Council of State strictly applied this text, requiring the applicant to specify “the damage he invokes to justify an interest giving him standing to act, by mentioning all sufficiently precise and substantiated elements so as to establish that this interference is likely to directly affect the conditions of occupation, use or enjoyment of his property (Brodelle and Gino judgment (CE, June 10, 2015, no. 386121: JurisData no. 2015-013930).
The immediate neighbor could no longer content himself with arguing about the proximity of his property to the site of the contested project. He had to establish how “the conditions of occupation, use or enjoyment of his property” could be directly affected (CE, 10 Feb. 2016, no. 387507, SAS Sifer Promotion: JurisData no. 2016-002076).
However, by various judgments rendered on April 13, 2016 (CE, 1st and 6th sect. combined, April 13, 2016, no. 390109: JurisData no. 2016-007519; CE, 1st and 6th sect. combined, April 13, 2016, No. 389799: JurisData No. 2016-007517; CE, 1st and 6th sect. combined, 13 Apr. 2016, No. 389801; CE, 1st and 6th sect. combined, 13 Apr. 2016, No. 389802: JurisData n° 2016-007518), the Council of State amended its case law, reserving a special status for the immediate neighbor considering:
Special status of the immediate neighbor in urban planning issues
“that in view of his particular situation, the immediate neighbor justifies, in principle, an interest in acting when he reports to the judge, who rules in view of all the documents in the file, elements relating to the nature , the size or location of the construction project; »
The immediate neighbor thus benefits from a presumption, exempting him from having to establish how the conditions of occupation, use or enjoyment of his property would be affected by the disputed project.
This quality is not reserved for those whose plot is adjacent to that of the headquarters of the disputed project since in these cases, the neighbors located at 2, 3, and 12 of the street were all considered as such, the disputed project located at number 4 on the street.
As in this case, it can therefore be maintained by the immediate neighbor that he would necessarily suffer the consequences of the project in terms of view, living environment, peaceful enjoyment of his property due to the works and possible difficulties of traffic. .
To enlighten the judges on the nature, the importance or the location of the project, the immediate neighbor can in particular produce cartographic documents, layout plans, the request for a permit, the permit obtained.
The Council of State thus re-established the presumption of interest in acting from which the immediate neighbor benefited before the 2013 reform, very recently confirming its position ( Council of State, June 20, 2016, no. 386932 ).
