On 17 July 2026, the Flemish Government approved two preliminary draft decrees[2] implementing the ‘Action programme for legally certain and robust permits’. The first preliminary draft optimises the modular integrated environmental permit procedure with a view to making permit processes more efficient, flexible and legally robust. The second preliminary draft includes, among other things, a major reform of the subdivision permit requirement and various amendments to the Municipal roads decree.
Scale is closely monitoring these developments for you. If you already have any questions or comments, please contact our Environmental & Planning team on Environmental & Planning Law Lawyer | Scale or info@scale-law.be.
Below, we provide an overview of the most important proposed changes.
- Preliminary draft amending decree on the modular integrated environmental permit
With this preliminary draft amending decree, the Flemish Government is implementing the highest-priority procedural aspects of the Permits action programme. The focus is on a more efficient and solution-oriented permit process, offering greater legal certainty and more scope for consultation and optimisation during the procedure.
It should be noted that the preliminary draft was approved at the second reading and has now been submitted to the Legislation section of the Council of State for its opinion. The proposed amendments discussed below are therefore not yet final. Whether the amending decrees will ultimately be approved and, if so, when they will enter into force is not yet known.
The proposed amendments will undoubtedly give rise to further debate, for example concerning the right of access to a court. However, the primary purpose of this newsletter is to provide an overview of the most striking new elements. We discuss some of these notable changes below.
Introduction of a (threefold) pause button
One of the most notable changes is the proposed introduction of a fixed 60-day extension of the time limit, at the applicant’s request, during the permit procedure. This so-called ‘pause button’ creates scope for further consultation, mediation or modifications to the permit application file. This means that a project initiator would not have to submit a new application to, for example following unfavourable opinions, remedy the file within a very short period. Currently, only the administrative appeal stage provides a one-off, reasoned request for an extension of the time limit (Article 66, §2/1 of the Integrated environmental permit decree “OVD”).
The new pause button may be used up to three times at each administrative instance. It may also be combined with extensions of the time limit associated with:
i) the public
inquiry (maximum of one extension);
ii) a required
decision on road matters (maximum of one extension);
iii) an
administrative loop (maximum of one extension); and
iv) an amendment
loop (maximum of two extensions).
However, the pause button cannot be used during the public inquiry or during the advisory periods themselves, with the exception of the advisory period of the environmental permit committee.
Right to preliminary consultation
Permit applicants will be given an explicit statutory right to preliminary consultation with the competent authority and, where necessary, the advisory bodies concerned. In principle, the formal and substantive framework for this consultation will remain flexible and not be extensively formalised. The aim is to use dialogue to identify and resolve potential issues before the application is submitted.
Changes to the admissibility and completeness review
During the admissibility and completeness review, the project initiator will have greater control over the process. The public authority will be able, once-only, to specify the reasons why it considers the application inadmissible or incomplete and request that the application be withdrawn or supplemented. However, it will then be up to the permit applicant to decide how to proceed. The applicant may:
- withdraw the application;
- supplement the application; or
- state that they don't consider withdrawal or supplements necessary.
If the applicant fails to respond in time, i.e. within sixty days of the request to withdraw or supplement, the application will be discontinued by operation of law.
Whereas today the authority granting the permit or the competent environmental officer decides whether a permit application file is complete and admissible and may proceed, whether or not after supplementing, in future it will be for the applicant to decide whether to proceed with the application. This will, of course, be at the applicant’s own risk.
With these changes, the legislator aims at providing greater clarity regarding the commencement of the procedure and the applicable time limits.
Societal added value as an assessment criterion
Authorities granting permits will explicitly be able to take into account a new assessment criterion in the permit process, more specifically the ‘societal added value of a project’.
In addition to the traditional legal and sector-specific criteria, this new assessment criterion is intended to allow the societal, economic, social, cultural and ecological benefits of a project to be expressly weighed against its costs and adverse impacts, insofar as the public authority enjoys broad discretion. The acceptability of adverse impacts may therefore be assessed differently depending on whether a project has more or less societal added value. The intention is for societal added value to be given a more explicit and prominent role (or weight) in the assessment of permit applications.
For the time being, the legislator intends this criterion to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis, with administrative case law also playing a role.
Enhanced role for consultation and advisory opinions
The concept of ‘preliminary opinions’ will be introduced. These are the contributions made by the advisory bodies participating in the consultations of the environmental permit committee in preparation for the committee’s integrated opinion.
The role of the environmental permit committee will also be further developed. The explanatory memorandum to the preliminary draft emphasises a problem solving, mediating approach when an advisory body and the project initiator disagree. By promoting greater dialogue between applicants, advisory bodies, local authorities and other stakeholders, the legislator aims to achieve better substantiated and more future-oriented decisions. The pause button is also an important tool in this respect, for example where project initiators are faced with an unfavourable preliminary opinion.
Simplification of the integrated procedure and road matters
The preliminary draft proposes changes to the integrated procedure concerning ‘road matters’. The legislator intends to replace the organised administrative appeal to the Flemish Government against a municipal council decision with a mandatory reconsideration of the decision by the municipal council, structured as a module within the Integrated environmental permit decree.
Where the municipal council’s decision on road matters is incorporated into the permit decision, an appeal may be lodged against the permit decision, and arguments may at the same time be raised against the municipal council decision. If arguments are indeed raised against the original decision on road matters in the administrative appeal against the permit decision, the municipal council will be reconvened to reconsider its decision.
One public inquiry and a mandatory request for reconsideration
The basic principle will be that only one public inquiry is conducted at first instance, at the start of the procedure.
In addition to the administrative appeal against a decision granting or refusing a permit, a new form of participation will be introduced. Before proceedings can be brought before the Council for Permit Disputes, a mandatory reconsideration procedure will first have to be completed.
The so-called request for reconsideration will allow interested parties, after the public authority has taken a decision at final or sole administrative instance, to first submit their arguments against that decision to the same public authority. A (short) period of fifteen days will apply for this purpose. This gives the public authority a further opportunity to reconsider or amend its decision before proceedings are initiated before the Council for Permit Disputes. The request for reconsideration will have suspensive effect.
Revival of the duty to raise arguments and draw attention to issues
Greater emphasis will also be placed on the responsibility of stakeholders through a duty to raise arguments and draw attention to issues: all arguments must be raised in good time during the administrative procedure and, at the latest, in the request for reconsideration. These arguments therefore cannot be raised for the first time before the Council for Permit Disputes, with the exception of arguments relating to changes introduced for the first time in the reconsideration decision.
Withdrawal of a permit during judicial appeal
Authorities granting permits will be given the option of withdrawing a permit during judicial proceedings before the Council for Permit Disputes, either on their own initiative or at the request of the permit applicant. Such withdrawal will not be regarded as an acknowledgement that the withdrawn decision was unlawful or irregular. The authority granting the permit may subsequently adopt a new, improved decision.
2. Preliminary draft amending decree: miscellaneous measures under the Permits action programme
The second preliminary draft amending decree implements the policy recommendations of the Action programme. This includes reforming the subdivision permit requirement and the Municipal roads decree, as well as changes to the Flemish Spatial Planning Code (“VCRO”). The preliminary draft has received approval in principle from the Flemish Government at its first reading and is currently being submitted to the strategic advisory councils for their opinions. At the earliest, in autumn 2026, after considering those opinions, the Flemish Government will be able to approve the preliminary draft again and submit it to the Council of State for its opinion. These reforms are therefore also not yet final. Some of the key points are outlined below.
Reform of the subdivision permit requirement
In recent years, the scope of the subdivision permit requirement has given rise to numerous disputes and legal uncertainty. The subdivision permit requirement will therefore be reformed and simplified with a view to increasing legal certainty.
The preliminary draft amends the definition of ‘subdivision’ (Article 4.1.1, 14°, “VCRO”) and clarifies the scope of the subdivision permit requirement (Article 4.2.15, §1, “VCRO”). In addition, three exceptions to the subdivision permit requirement will be introduced, albeit while retaining subdivision rights:
- an off-plan sale for which a final, enforceable and unexpired integrated environmental permit has been granted (provided that the obligations imposed by the permit have been fulfilled or secured);
- a single-lot subdivision (provided that, at the time of the transfer of the undeveloped lot, the purchaser holds a final, enforceable integrated environmental permit); and
- a municipal spatial zoning plan (“RUP”) in which the subdivision permit requirement for residential areas has been abolished (subject to compliance with the preconditions).
In addition, the regulatory nature of subdivision regulations will be limited in time. In future, the regulations will be binding for only fifteen years. After that period, the subdivision regulations and subdivision plan will lose their regulatory nature by operation of law. As a result, old subdivision regulations will no longer automatically constitute a binding assessment framework. Only the municipal council will be able to give a reasoned decision to retain the regulatory nature of the regulations after the 15-year period.
Optimisation of the Municipal roads decree
The Action programme has shown that the current Municipal roads decree regularly gives rise to formalistic discussions, including in relation to building line plans and the application of the integrated procedure with the integrated environmental permit (cf. Article 12, §2 of the Municipal roads decree).
To address these issues, the preliminary draft contains several simplification measures. The aim is to reduce formalism, focus on the essentials and avoid unnecessary procedural delays.
- The
classifications ‘construction, modification, relocation or abolition of a
municipal road’ will be abandoned. The municipal council will henceforth have
exclusive competence for all decisions concerning ‘changes to the municipal
road network’. A purely temporary change to the municipal road network required
for the performance of urban planning works will no longer require a municipal
council decision. This is particularly relevant for wind turbine projects.
- The obligation
for municipalities to record the location of all their municipal roads in
municipal building line plans will be abolished. As a result, a building line
plan will no longer have to be attached when establishing 30 years of actual
public use: a graphic plan will suffice. Nor will a project initiator be
required to attach a building line plan in the integrated environmental permit
procedure. Road boundaries shown on permit plans will no longer constitute
‘building lines’ but ‘actual road boundaries’, which must be indicated
graphically on the plans. However, a building line plan will remain mandatory
when the municipal council wishes to make changes to the municipal road network
outside the context of an integrated environmental permit.
- The Council for Permit Disputes will have jurisdiction to suspend and annul municipal council decisions concerning road matters in the integrated procedure. Together with the appeal against the integrated environmental permit, the Council will hear the judicial appeal against the municipal council decision on road matters (whether or not that decision has been reconsidered.[3]
Abolition of ‘policy-based desired developments’ (“BGOs”)
The description of good spatial planning (Article 4.3.1, §2 “VCRO”) will be amended with a view to more predictability. The concept of ‘policy-based desired development’ will therefore be abolished.
More flexible derogations and simpler amendments to special plans of construction and spatial zoning plans
The possibility of derogating from old, often outdated urban planning regulations contained in special plans of construction (“BPAs”) will be reformed and extended to spatial implementation plans (“RUPs”). This will remain limited to matters concerning the layout and design of an area and will apply to regulations that are at least ten years old.
The existing simplified procedure for amending certain special plans of construction regulations, currently laid down in Article 7.4.4/1 “VCRO”, will also be replaced by a broader procedure for revising or repealing regulations contained in both special plans of construction and spatial implementation plans.
***
Authors: Kristof Hectors – Céline Bimbenet – Pieter Mertens (Scale)
[1] With thanks to summer intern Julie Verbrugghe for her valuable contribution.
[2] (1) Preliminary draft decree amending various decrees following the introduction of the modular integrated environmental permit procedure, Flemish Government, 17 July 2026, No. 0899/2bis, https://www.vlaanderen.be/vlaamse-regering/beslissingen-van-de-vlaamse-regering/invoering-modulaire-omgevingsvergunningsprocedure-wijziging-verschillende-decreten.
(2) Preliminary draft decree amending various decrees following the Action programme for legally certain and robust permits and optimising the rules on municipal roads, Flemish Government, 17 July 2026, No. 0900/2ter, https://www.vlaanderen.be/vlaamse-regering/beslissingen-van-de-vlaamse-regering/actieprogramma-rechtszekere-en-robuuste-vergunningen-en-optimalisaties-regeling-gemeentewegen-voorontwerp-van-wijzigingsdecreet.
[3] See above, ‘Simplification of the integrated procedure and road matters’