Planning Permission and Single Site: When Two Shops 300 Metres Apart Do Not Form a Single Site

You are the owner of a commercial premises in Aubagne, on Avenue des Goums, and you plan to open a second shop 300 metres away. A mere formality, you think: a single planning permission will suffice, since both shops will be run by the same company. Yet the local authority refuses: these two points of sale do not constitute a single site within the meaning of the law. But what difference does that actually make? And how should you respond?

The Cour de cassation, in its judgment of 19 June 2001 (No. 99-15.411), provides a clear answer: two shops, even if linked by a common legal structure, are not considered a single site if they are 300 metres apart and separated by a road that is impossible to cross. This decision, made under Law No. 73-1193 of 27 December 1973 on planning permission, sets out the concrete criteria for determining the geographical unity of a development project.

In plain terms, just because you are the same owner or the same company operating two shops does not mean you can treat them as a single site. The courts look at the actual layout: distance, obstacles, customer access. This judgment is a reference for all property developers, whether promoters, traders or individuals. Let us analyse this decision and its practical implications together.

The Facts: A Commonplace Story

Mr X, a property developer in Aix-en-Provence, had obtained planning permission to build a commercial complex. Subsequently, two separate property investment companies (SCI), both linked to Mr X, obtained on the same day two planning permissions for two additional shops, located about 300 metres from the first. These three permissions were granted without the prior authorisation required by Article 29 of the 1973 Law for a single site.

The local authority, considering that the three shops formed a single site and that only one permission should have been issued, challenged the permissions. The court of appeal annulled the last two permissions, holding that they related to the same site as the first. However, the Cour de cassation quashed this judgment and remitted the case to another court of appeal. Why? Because the court of appeal had not sufficiently reasoned its decision on the lack of geographical continuity between the shops.

undefined, I have come across cases where owners in Aubagne or Aix-en-Provence were refused planning permission for an extension on the grounds that the project was too far from the main building. The line between a single site and multiple sites is often subtle, and this judgment clarifies it.

The Court's Reasoning — Analysed

The Cour de cassation recalls that Article 29-1 of Law No. 73-1193 of 27 December 1973 (now codified in Article L. 421-1 of the French Planning Code, which requires planning permission for new construction, even without foundations) imposes a single authorisation for a single site. But what is a single site? The law does not define it precisely. The courts must therefore assess it on a case-by-case basis (i.e., freely) according to the factual circumstances.

In this case, the court of appeal had held that the two additional shops formed part of the same site as the first because they were linked by a common legal structure. The Cour de cassation censured this reasoning: a mere legal link is not enough. The actual geographical situation must be examined. Here, the two shops were 300 metres apart, separated by a road that was impossible to cross on foot, and communication between them required roundabouts that lengthened the journey. In other words, customers could not easily move from one shop to the other. The lower courts, by relying on these factors, were entitled to conclude that there was no single site.

What few people know is that this decision is part of consistent case law: the unity of site is assessed in concreto (based on the facts), not in abstracto (theoretically). The judges must describe precisely the physical obstacles, distances, and means of access. Mere geographical proximity (e.g., 200 metres) is not enough if an obstacle (road, railway, river) makes movement difficult.

However, note that this decision does not undermine the principle that the same owner can obtain several permissions for separate buildings. It simply reminds that if the buildings are sufficiently close and accessible, the authority may require a single permission.

What This Means for You — Practically

For the landlord or property developer: If you plan to build several buildings in the same area, even through separate companies, you must check whether the authority will consider the whole as a single site. In Aix-en-Provence, for example, a developer building two blocks on either side of a busy road could face a refusal of separate permissions. In that case, you would need to submit an amending permission or a single permission for the whole. The processing time for a planning permission is generally 2 to 3 months, but an amending permission may take an extra month. The cost of challenging a refusal can reach €5,000 to €10,000 in legal fees, not including expert costs.

For the commercial tenant: If you rent a unit in a complex of shops, and the landlord obtains planning permission for an extension, you should check that the permission is valid regarding the site concept. An annulled permission could lead to demolition of the works, affecting your business. If in doubt, ask to see the planning permission.

For the buyer of a building plot: Before buying, check whether planning permissions have been granted for neighbouring buildings owned by the same seller. If so, ensure they are not challengeable for breach of site unity. The notary can help, but a lawyer planning lawyer can carry out a more thorough audit (costing €1,500 to €3,000).

If you are in this situation, you must act quickly: challenges to a planning permission must be brought within 2 months of its display. After that period, the permission becomes unchallengeable.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Anticipate site unity from the design stage: Before submitting several applications, commission an impact study from a town planner to determine whether the authority may consider the whole as a single site. In Aubagne, for example, a project of three shops along the RN8 could be deemed a single site despite distances of 200 metres, if the road is easily crossable.
• Prefer a single permission if in doubt: If the buildings are less than 500 metres apart and accessible on foot, it is better to submit a single planning permission for the whole. This avoids the risk of annulment and procedural costs. The cost of a single permission is no higher than that of several separate permissions.
• Document physical obstacles: If you believe your buildings are independent, prepare a file with photos, plans and topographical surveys showing the obstacles (roads, walls, railways) that separate them. These elements will be valuable in case of inspection.
• Consult a lawyer before submitting: For a major development project, a 30-minute consultation with a lawyer lawyer (about €150) can save you years of litigation. The lawyer will check the project's compliance with recent case law.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

The decision of 19 June 2001 is part of a consistent line of case law. Already, in a judgment of 27 January 1999 (No. 97-10.555), the Cour de cassation held that two buildings 150 metres apart and separated by a departmental road did not constitute a single site. Conversely, in a judgment of 13 December 1994 (No. 93-11.222), it held that buildings 50 metres apart with no obstacle formed a single site. The trend of the courts is therefore to adopt a concrete, case-by-case assessment, with relative tolerance for large distances combined with obstacles.

This case law was reinforced by the 2007 reform of the Planning Code, which strengthened the requirement for a single permission for comprehensive developments. Today, Article L. 421-1 of the Planning Code (replacing the former Article 29-1) is interpreted even more strictly by planning authorities. In practice, in Aix-en-Provence, planning departments often require a single permission for any project involving several buildings on the same plot or on adjacent plots, even if the buildings are separated by a private road. It is therefore essential to enquire in advance.

Key Points to Remember

FAQ:

• Q: Can I obtain two planning permissions for two shops owned by the same company, 200 metres apart? A: Yes, if a physical obstacle (dangerous road, railway) makes communication difficult. Otherwise, the authority may require a single permission. The case law requires a concrete assessment.
• Q: What should I do if my permission is challenged for breach of site unity? A: You must demonstrate that the buildings are independent by producing evidence of obstacles (photos, plans, witness statements). The challenge period is 2 months after display.
• Q: What is the risk if I do not respect site unity? A: The permission may be annulled, leading to an obligation to demolish the buildings and restore the site. Third parties may claim damages.
• Q: Is an amending permission sufficient to regularise the situation? A: Yes, if the works are not yet completed. The amending permission must be applied for before the works are finished. After that, a regularisation declaration may be necessary, but it is riskier.
• Q: How much does it cost to challenge a refusal of permission on site unity grounds? A: Legal fees range from €3,000 to €10,000 depending on complexity. Court costs (expert, bailiff) may be added.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →