Late-filed documents may alter the outcome of the permitting process

Permit applications must be handled fairly: applicants for urban and environmental permits may not submit new technical studies or other important documents when the parties concerned are no longer able to review or comment on them in a timely manner. Yet this practice is commonplace, much to the frustration of many applicants and their legal counsels. In a judgment of 23 October 2025, the Council for Permit Disputes (CPD) now puts an end to this.

CPD 23 October 2025 (RvVb-A-2526-0131)

1. Which situation prompted the decision?

A project for the construction of nine single-family homes in an inner area, had previously led to three annulments by the Council for Permit Disputes. In the fourth round, just before the hearing at the Provincial Authority, the applicant submitted an additional noise study and a report on odor nuisance. These very documents ultimately proved decisive for the Provincial Authority to grant a permit.

This caused great dissatisfaction for the appellant, who was unable to examine these new documents in time and felt blindsided. According to the appellant, the Provincial Authority should have investigated whether these late submissions required a new public consultation or should have been submitted again to the provincial planning officer. Aggrieved by this procedure, the appellant lodged an appeal with the Council for Permit Disputes.


2. What did the Council for Permit Disputes rule?

The Council reminded that, although it is possible to submit new documents during an appeal, certain conditions must be met (cf. Article 64 of the Environment Permit Decree). One of these conditions is that the rights of third parties are not infringed, such as the right to defend themselves in a useful and informed manner.

According to the Council, the new studies were by no means incidental. That the appellant only saw them for the first time during the hearing was a step too far for the Council: the public must not be confronted with faits accomplis. Therefore, the permit could not rely on information of which the appellant could not take timely notice, let alone comment on – certainly not without any justification provided by the Provincial Authority. The permit was therefore annulled.


3. Conclusion

The key lesson from this ruling is simple yet fundamental for any permit procedure: transparency and timeliness are not mere formalities, but basic conditions for a fair process. Applicants cannot “fix” their file by suddenly submitting additional studies at the last minute, and permitting authorities may not simply accept such documents.

The Council thus clearly draws a line against the practice of last-minute file corrections to the detriment of appellants against an environment permit. For applicants, this means that essential documents should be submitted in a timely manner, while authorities must ensure that any changes are properly assessed in accordance with Article 64 of the Environment Permit Decree (with justification). This prevents a permit from being annulled at a later stage.

Do not hesitate to contact Andersen’s Real Estate team in Belgium for more information and assistance in proceedings before the Council for Permit Disputes and other administrative courts.
Matias Osorio Olivera (Counsel)

Auteur(s) :

Expertises :