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
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.
Post non-competition ban on services and sales franchise
When a franchise agreement ends, many franchisees encounter a prohibition in the franchise agreement to perform similar work for a period of time thereafter
The concept of the Franchise Act: impact for franchisors and franchisees – dated February 5, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten believes that if the draft of the Franchise Act actually becomes law, a lot will change for franchisors and franchisees.
Buy franchise business and the laid off sick employee from 7 years ago
The question is whether a Bruna franchisee, when selling the franchise company to Bruna, should have stated that seven years ago an employee had left employment sick.
Court prohibits Domino’s unilateral area reduction when extending franchise agreements – dated January 28, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
On January 9, 2019, the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment in a lawsuit initiated by the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees and all its members (almost all Domino's franchisees).