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
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.