Building law: neighbouring action against the planning permission for the construction of a residential complex for the disabled

Koblenz Administrative Court, 8 May 2014, Ref.: 1 K 1104/13.KO

Property owners can challenge the planning permission granted to their neighbour if their rights under public law are infringed by this permission. The aim of neighbour complaints is often directed against building permits for facilities for the disabled, asylum homes, day care centres or children's playgrounds.

For example, an appeal against the planning permission can be lodged with the competent administrative court within one month of the notification or public announcement of the decision.

It should be noted that a neighbour's action to contest a building permit does not generally have a suspensive effect.

This means that the building owner may start construction work despite the pending action (even if he then bears the risk of having to demolish the building project again). In addition to the lawsuit, the plaintiff must therefore also file an application for an order to suspend the effect of his action for rescission so that the neighbour is not allowed to start construction work for the time being.

Neighbourhood action only has a chance of success if the neighbour bringing the action is impaired in his rights

In terms of substantive law, the neighbour's action for annulment against the building owner only has a chance of success if the neighbour bringing the action is infringed by the building permit in his interests protected under public law.

In other words, a public law regulation must have been violated that is at least intended to protect the rights of the neighbour (so-called neighbour-protecting regulation). A frequent case is, for example, non-compliance with clearance areas due to the construction work.

In the above-mentioned case, the Koblenz Administrative Court had to decide whether a property owner's complaint against the granting of planning permission for the construction of a residential complex for the disabled was justified.

Case Facts of the Court Decision

The plaintiff was the owner of a residential building in Kaltenengers. It was located in the immediate vicinity of an area of the local community of St. Sebastian, which had been designated as a general residential area in the "Am Kaltenengerser Weg III" development plan.

Neighbour takes legal action against planned home for the disabled

A self-determined residential community for disabled people was to be established in the plaintiff's neighbourhood, which was to be operated by a private company. At the request of this company, the district of Mayen-Koblenz granted three building permits for the construction of one residential building each for this purpose in a simplified authorisation procedure.

The district also approved a service building with a bistro, rooms for outpatient services, occupational therapy, short-term care and administration.

The plaintiff lodged an objection against all the planning permissions granted and, after various interim legal protection proceedings were unsuccessful, brought an action for failure to act.

Judgement of the Koblenz Administrative Court

The Koblenz Administrative Court dismissed the action on the grounds that the building permits did not infringe any subjective rights of the plaintiff.

Neither had the regulations on the type of area been disregarded, nor were the three residential buildings and the bistro building inconsiderate.

Court rules that the sight and expressions of disabled people are acceptable

Neighbours are generally required to accept the sight and expressions of disabled people.

Also, contrary to the applicant's view, no significant traffic disruption was to be expected as a result of the projects and, due to the distance and size of the buildings, they would not have an oppressive effect on the neighbouring residential buildings.

The authorisations would also not violate fire safety regulations to the detriment of the applicant. The residential buildings had been authorised under the simplified approval procedure, in which fire safety regulations did not have to be examined. With regard to the service building, there was no evidence of such a breach.

Source: Administrative Court of Koblenz

Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.

If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.

Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients in construction law

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *