The case study in brief
The municipality of Stichtse Vecht adopted a zoning plan for the area "Garsten Noord," which created space for new residential development. After the draft zoning plan was made available for public inspection, several changes were made, as follows:
- The 'residential -1' zoning was changed to 'residential -4';
- A "residential" zoning was changed to "business.
- An 'agricultural' zoning was changed to 'residential'; and
- The planning area was modified.
It thus involved multiple zoning changes. These modifications led to objections from local residents and businesses who felt that the municipality should have gone through a completely new procedure.
Further consideration of changes
A closer look does reveal that the amendments are somewhat smaller than they appeared at first glance.
The first amendment (from zoning 'wonen -1' ('living -1') to 'wonen -4' ('living -4') concerned an amendment of a residential zoning to living on a business area.
The second amendment concerned an amendment of the zoning 'residential -1' to the zoning 'business' with the function indication 'specific form of business - business residence and lodging'. This allowed a company residence and lodging for six labor migrants.
The third amendment concerned changing the zoning 'agrarisch met waarden' to 'wonen', with which a dwelling was permitted.
The fourth and final amendment concerned an amendment to the planning area.
Why did the State Council rule that a new procedure was not necessary?
If the amendments result in a substantially different plan, a new preparation procedure is required. The Council of State considers that the amendments in themselves and in connection with each other, however, did not lead to a substantially different plan. Regarding the first two amendments, the Council of State considers that the nature and extent of the amendment is limited. Regarding the change from "agricultural" to "residential", it is important to note that this was already based on an irrevocable permit and that the zoning plan therefore did not allow for more than was permitted independently of the zoning plan. The modification of the planning area was also limited in nature.
What does this ruling mean for you as a developer?
For developers, this ruling is good news because it confirms that not every change in a zoning plan automatically requires a new and time-consuming procedure. This means that there is room for adjustments and optimizations in the plans, without this leading to unnecessary delays or costs. However, it remains important to work closely with municipalities and actively participate in public participation procedures from the beginning. In this way, developers can anticipate the possible objections and concerns of stakeholders at an early stage and, if necessary, make adjustments that fit within the boundaries of the original plan.
Moreover, this ruling provides a clear guideline for what is considered a "substantial" change , namely: as long as the core of the zoning plan does not change and the original principles of the plan are respected, a municipality can make adjustments within reasonable limits without initiating an entirely new procedure.
Conclusion
This ruling makes clear that the necessary adjustments - between the draft zoning plan and the zoning plan to be adopted - may be made without having to go through the preparation procedure again. Even situations already irrevocably licensed (in the meantime) may be included in the amended adoption. Our expectation is that this will be no different for environmental plans under the Environment Act.
