Supermarket location due to exceeding the decision period by the municipality
In a dispute with the municipality of Helmond, the issue is whether a project developer has obtained an environmental permit to build a supermarket. Jumbo, among others, opposes this. The Council of State rules that an environmental permit has been created by operation of law due to the municipality of Helmond exceeding the decision period. See RvSt 5 June 2024, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:2336.
Merwehave BV is the owner of a project location. On July 8, 2021, she applied for an environmental permit from the municipality to realize a supermarket at the project location. The municipality did not respond to this within the decision period, as a result of which an environmental permit was granted by operation of law. However, the municipality refused to acknowledge that a permit had been granted by operation of law. Merwehave BV did not agree with this and subsequently went to court, which agreed with Merwehave BV. The environmental permit was therefore granted.
Jumbo, among others, disagreed with the court’s decision. They believe that a supermarket should not be built at the project location because it would not be in accordance with the zoning plan. Jumbo has already established Jumbo supermarkets in the area. In order to still qualify for an environmental permit, according to Jumbo, a regular preparation procedure would not have been sufficient. However, on appeal it is ruled that the environmental permit was indeed rightly granted, as the court previously ruled.
The foregoing means that the environmental permit must be issued. This does not end the dispute. Objections were again raised against the granting of the environmental permit and the municipality has decided to withdraw the environmental permit (on other grounds). The legal marriage process will continue for a while.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.