The Permit, the Neighbour and the Demolished Wall
Mevrouw Jansen owns a café in a listed building. In January the municipality granted her an environmental permit to build a small terrace enclosure. Her neighbour, De Vries, objected during the procedure but the permit was granted with a condition that the enclosure be 'removable within one day'. In March Jansen built a brick wall instead of the removable structure. The municipality has not enforced. De Vries now asks you to act. He is 78, has limited income, and the four-week objection period against the permit expired in February. He wants the wall gone before summer. You also learn the municipality's enforcement policy says it prioritises cases with 'serious safety risk' and deprioritises 'aesthetic disputes between neighbours'.
1. Assess De Vries's procedural position: can he still challenge the permit, and what routes remain?
Read the worked answer
The permit itself is likely out of reach: the objection period expired in February and he was an interested party who objected, so he knew of the decision. Late objection is possible only on limited grounds, and he should not be advised to rely on it. The stronger route is enforcement. He can request the municipality to take enforcement action against the wall, which appears to breach the permit condition. If the municipality refuses, that refusal is itself a decision against which he can object and appeal as an interested party. He should also check whether the wall requires a separate permit, since building without one creates an independent enforcement ground. Advise him to file a written enforcement request with a deadline, keep proof of submission, and prepare to challenge a refusal. The expired objection period is not the end of the matter, but it does narrow the options.
2. The municipality refuses to enforce, citing its policy. How would you argue that this refusal is unreasonable, and what is weak in your position?
Read the worked answer
Argue that the policy is a guideline, not a rule, and cannot justify ignoring a concrete breach of a permit condition. The wall is attached to a listed building, so the 'aesthetic dispute' label is questionable: heritage harm and fire-safety access are public interests, not private taste. Point out that the condition requiring removability within one day shows the municipality itself considered the structure's permanence significant, so allowing a permanent brick wall defeats the permit's purpose. Also argue inconsistency: the municipality granted a permit on a premise it now declines to protect. Weakness: enforcement is discretionary and courts give the municipality latitude; if the policy genuinely ranks this low and no safety risk is shown, a court may accept the refusal. His limited income and the summer deadline are sympathetic but legally irrelevant. Realistic aim: force a reasoned decision, not necessarily demolition.
3. Advise De Vries on a parallel civil route and on how to sequence civil and administrative action.
Read the worked answer
He may have a civil claim in nuisance or unlawful interference against Jansen, asking the civil court for removal or an injunction. The advantage is speed and directness against the neighbour; the disadvantage is cost and the risk that the civil court defers to the administrative outcome. Sequencing matters: file the administrative enforcement request first, because a favourable administrative decision may resolve the matter cheaply, and a refusal strengthens the civil argument that the wall is unlawful. Do not run both at full speed simultaneously; that duplicates cost. Explain the financial risk of litigation, explore whether he qualifies for subsidised legal aid, and consider a letter before action demanding removal by a date. Be candid that a civil court may be reluctant to order demolition while the permit dispute is unresolved.