Urban planning in Brussels: “There is an increasingly increased reluctance of municipalities in the building division”

Since when do such divisions require a permit? However, And does this mean that old divisions could be legal?

In Brussels. For example, since February 9, 1996, interior work has been exempt from town planning permits if they meet certain conditions, including not to modify the number of housing when it comes to a residential building. In addition, From this date. For example, if the interior work generates an increase (or a decrease) of the number of housing in a residential building, a planning permit is necessary.

Changes in the number of dwellings that have been carried out before February 9. Therefore, 1996 and which proceeds from interior work exempt from license by the regime in force at the time must be qualified as regular and are acquired.

In a relatively recent urban planning brussels: “there increasingly judgment. Therefore, the Council of State confirmed this pivotal or pivotal date in the Brussels-Capital Region (and not on December 1, 1993, as some municipalities try to impose it illegally by wrongly assimilating the creation of housing with a change of use).

Obtaining an urban planning permit: “The only choice in the face of blockages is the collective solution”

However. Additionally, Therefore, this is not automatically the case.

In the previous exemption regime (in force from July 1. Furthermore, 1992 until February 8, 1996), the exemption from license was only worth it as the realization of the interior work did not involve “No derogation from legal and regulatory provisions”. Furthermore, Where the rub is. However, it is often about the compliance of the work with the general regulations on the building of the Brussels agglomeration of March 21, 1975 or RGBA (however deemed illegal by the Council urban planning brussels: “there increasingly of State, which many municipalities refuse to hear!).

Let us take the example of the development of an apartment on the first floor of a. Therefore, building in which a large “room” (name which appears on the sealed attached to the construction permit of a single -family house) was divided in two by one partition to make two small bedrooms. However, Unlike the current Rru (Title II), the RGBA did not impose any minimum surface standard. In addition, That said, you must ensure that the degree of natural lighting in each of the two chambers created is sufficient. Moreover, The net surface of the berries and windows must represent 1/5 of the surface of the floor which they light. Nevertheless, In this example, the ceiling height remains the same.

Another example: the development of a duplex at R + 2 and in the attic of an urban planning brussels: “there increasingly initially unifamilial building. Furthermore, Under the slope of the roof (initially an attic and therefore of the accommodation accessory), a room is fitted out. Meanwhile, This room will have to respect the 1/5 natural lighting ratio of the berries. Therefore, windows, which is more restrictive than what the title II requires (1/12 under the slope of the roof). However, The ceiling height must similarly reach 260 centimeters. Furthermore, which is also more severe than what the Rru is implemented (indeed, according to the latter, “The minimum height under ceiling of living spaces in the attic is 2.30 meters. Therefore, It relates to at least half of the floor area “). In some old communal town planning regulations (sometimes from the beginning of the 20th century). it is also necessary to highlight the many requirements that concern toilets, including the need to have a airlock between a toilet and a living urban planning brussels: “there increasingly room …

The rules of the time can therefore be more severe, be careful!

This compliance with a previous diet is compulsory?

Yes. However. some municipalities are mild and accept the application of the rules currently in urban planning brussels: “there increasingly force (which is logical since they reflect the current design of the “good development of the premises”) in place of those of the time.

If this is the case. it will be necessary to demonstrate that the minimum standards of area present in the Rru (and absent in the RGBA), especially for the rooms (14 m² if it is the first and 9 m² for the others), are reached.

But beware. it will also be necessary to take into account other requirements such as the presence of a room allowing to store household waste, a room allowing to store two-wheelers and children’s cars and a room for the storage of the cleaning equipment of the common areas of the building and the sidewalks. However, these premises are generally absent and it is therefore necessary to go through the allowed box.

The construction in difficulty: “Today. for a urban planning brussels: “there increasingly large new real estate project, it takes about 9 years to obtain a permit”

Such premises are often complicated to register in a unifamilial, however large it is.

If it is necessary to develop them as part of the implementation of a permit. this can be extremely problematic (potential amputation of certain private spaces) even if it is only necessary to “tend to” respect for the requirements posed when it comes to acts and works brought to an existing construction.

What are the latest urban planning brussels: “there increasingly changes in this area? Are they going to more flexibility?

It is too complicated to identify here all the Brussels jurisprudence of courts and courts. I would say that the Cobate has not been revised since the 2017 modification order of 2017. is very limited as to the regularization possibilities (the famous “simplified” regularization housed in art. 330. § 3, given the conditions it poses, is difficult to apply and, in practice, only allows small regularizations such as structural work carried out without permit).

With regard to procedures relating to division projects. the municipalities are increasingly acquiring recommendations in the matter which guide them in the investigation of the permit application.

So are the municipalities that have their hands?

Although having no regulatory value. these lines of conduct reflect the policy that the municipality follows to determine in what hypotheses a division is possible. Despite all the efforts undertaken. a certain part of subjectivity must be emphasized in decision -making, since civil servants and members of the aldermen’s colleges taking part in the decision, refer to their experience, their sensitivity and their own vision of the good development of the premises.

In general. over the years, I note an increasingly increased reluctance of the municipalities (and then of the government over appeal) in order to divide a monolobic building into several autonomous entities. Most often. the authority requires reviewing the number of units down as well as a certain diversity in terms of housing (for example a duplex type housing at -1 and the ground floor, with garden, which can accommodate a family, a two bedroom accommodation at R + 1, possibly a studio at R + 2).

Sleeping. abusive recourse against real estate permits: “people ask for money to withdraw them”

Finally, it should not be lost by view that the granting of a division permit is systematically made on conditions, whose compliance with firefighters’ requirements (whose cost is not trivial, as the measurements to be put in place: emergency exit, plaster and fire-cutting floor, RF or urban planning brussels: “there increasingly EI 30 and 60, compartmentalization, double evacuation, etc.). This implies a cost, which is often not budgeted by the permit applicant when preparing and then submitted his request. The ideal is to previously submit an online “pre -acate” request. This makes it possible to anticipate the requirements that will be placed by the firefighters.

However, there is a demographic and sociological evolution such as demand is more about smaller spaces. What allows the division of the large unifamilials of yesteryear.

It’s a good reflection. The population continues to grow and impoverish themselves. It is also necessary to underline the evolution of alternative housing modes to conventional housing like roommate. colving, group housing, intergenerational or kangaroo housing, etc. Only, current urban texts, in particular the Rru in Brussels, do not sufficiently encounter these phenomena. A reform is essential.

The divisions of houses in apartments in Brussels: a real headache

You mention the confiscation of the rents. perceived while the property is divided illegally. Can you explain? Is it really implemented?

An irregular division is a criminal offense. The product of an offense gives rise to the confiscation urban planning brussels: “there increasingly of the advantages drawn from the offense. Current jurisprudence does not allow the judge to limit confiscation to the only part of the rent allowed by. the offense. The whole rent is confiscated. It is in my opinion very severe.

Can we say that overall it is the same in Wallonia? What would be the big differences?

The division of monitoring buildings is less problematic in the Walloon Region. But the Surdensification, both in neighborhoods and houses, is increasingly slowing down division projects.