Receiving your childhood home as an inheritance and wanting to bring it back to life seemed like a simple project. But, for a man from a small French town with around 6,600 inhabitants, this intention turned into a legal conflict that has been going on since 2021. The owner saw the request to rehabilitate and expand the property blocked by the local authority, and ended up losing in court, which considered that the building was in advanced disrepair and located in an agricultural area, where urban planning rules did not allow the solution presented.
The case was decided by the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal (Cour administrative d’appel de Bordeaux), which confirmed a previous decision of the first instance. The Court concluded that the mayor acted within the legal framework and dismissed the heir’s claim that he was being subject to personal persecution.
According to Noticias Trabajo, a Spanish website specializing in legal and labor matters, the litigation began in March 2021, when the man submitted a formal request to renovate and expand the old family home, which was in an advanced state of disrepair.
The silence of the chamber did not give it a “definitive” green light
One of the owner’s arguments was based on the so-called administrative silence. The idea was simple: as the chamber did not respond within the deadline, this would mean tacit authorization to move forward.
The court, however, framed the case differently: silence could, in fact, lead to the formation of a tacit authorization, but the municipality ended up withdrawing this license, considering that the project violated urban planning rules applicable to the land. The court decision confirmed that, in these circumstances, the municipality could stop the process and withdraw the title that would have been formed due to a lack of timely response.
The heir also alleged that the mayor had an “intention to harm him”, pointing out personal conflicts and arguing that the work would not cause inconvenience to third parties, since the house is isolated. The owner also mentioned his connection to winemaking in the region. Even so, the judges concluded that there was not sufficient evidence of personal motivation on the part of the mayor.
Court considers that there was no salvageable “existing housing”
The judges focused their analysis on the physical condition of the building. The process images showed a building without a roof, with partially destroyed walls and a level of degradation that, in the court’s view, prevented it from being treated as an existing dwelling that could fall within the exceptions provided for interventions on agricultural land.
This point was decisive: without a construction that could legally be considered “existing housing”, the intervention came close, in practice, to the creation of new housing: something that local rules did not allow in that location.
Agricultural land: exceptions exist, but did not apply here
Another central point of the ruling concerns the classification of the land. The court confirmed that the plot was included in an agricultural zone in the local plan (PLU). In these areas, the rules tend to severely limit housing, only allowing exceptional situations: for example, certain constructions directly linked to agricultural activity and, in some cases, the extension of existing homes.
In this specific case, the Court concluded that the project did not fit into these exceptions, mainly because the condition of the building did not allow it to be treated as “existing housing” for the purposes of the applicable regime. The court also rejected the argument that the decision would violate the right to private and family life.
Requests rejected and decision confirmed
In the legal action, according to , the heir requested the annulment of the municipal decisions and even if the mayor was ordered to reevaluate the request within two months, under penalty of a daily fine of 300 euros. None of these claims were accepted.
The case illustrates how the emotional connection to an inherited property does not always find a favorable response in the law. When the condition of the construction and the classification of the soil conflict with the owner’s project, the courts tend to give priority to land use rules, even when the house where someone grew up is at stake.
And in Portugal?
In Portugal, a similar case would be analyzed mainly in light of the Urbanization and Building Legal Regime (RJUE), municipal plans (such as the PDM) and, when applicable, the National Agricultural Reserve (RAN) and National Ecological Reserve (REN) regimes.
In general terms, the distinction between rehabilitation/reconstruction and new construction can be decisive. Jurisprudence has admitted that, if a building is in total ruin and the objective is to “rebuild a new one in its place”, this can be treated as licensing of a new building, subject to current rules and not the principle of “protection of the existing”.
If the land is classified as rustic/agricultural land, construction for housing is, as a rule, very restricted, depending on the exceptions provided for in the law and in territorial management instruments; In the case of the RAN, the law expressly states that the areas must be allocated to agricultural activity and are “non aedificandi”, with their own regime and conditions for non-agricultural use of the land.
As for municipal “silence”, even in regimes in which tacit approval is discussed, the courts have stated that an urban planning claim that violates imperative planning norms (such as those of the PDM) cannot produce valid tacit approval.
Also read:
