Planning Permission and Breach of the Local Development Plan: Your Neighbour Can Still Sue You Even with Permission

Imagine: you live in Le Lude, in a quiet suburban area. One morning, your neighbour starts building work: his house rises higher, walls go up, a terrace appears. You check the planning permission displayed on site: it was granted by the town hall. Yet you feel something is wrong: the construction exceeds the maximum height allowed by the Local Development Plan (PLU). Can you take action? Does the planning permission prevent you from challenging it? This is precisely the question decided by the French Supreme Court in a judgment of 10 March 1976, which remains a reference.

This decision answers a question any owner or tenant may ask: does planning permission make a building automatically lawful? The answer is no. The Supreme Court overturned the reasoning of some lower court judges who thought that planning permission amounted to a derogation from planning rules. In short, even if the town hall gave its approval, if the construction breaches the regulations (height, distance, appearance, etc.), a neighbour can claim compensation before the civil court.

But what exactly does this change? And how should you react if faced with such a situation? Let us delve into this decision, nearly 50 years old but still relevant, particularly for residents of La Ferté-Bernard or Le Lude, where local planning rules sometimes cause disputes.

The facts: a story that happens every day

The facts are simple. Mr X, owner of a plot in Paris, obtains planning permission to build an apartment block. His neighbour, Mr Y, considers that the construction does not comply with the planning regulations (the former POS, now PLU): there is an excess of height and non-compliance with setback distances from the boundary. Mr Y sues Mr X before the Paris High Court (TGI) seeking demolition and damages.

At first instance, the court finds in favour of Mr Y. But Mr X appeals. The Paris Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 13 November 1974, dismisses Mr Y's claim. Its reasoning? The planning permission granted by the town hall constitutes a specific derogation from the planning regulations. In other words, since the administration gave the green light, the neighbour cannot complain about the breach.

Mr Y appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 10 March 1976, quashes the appeal judgment and remands the case to another court of appeal. It states a clear principle: the grant of planning permission does not in itself constitute a derogation from planning rules. The permission merely records the compliance of the project with the applicable rules. If the construction breaches those rules, the neighbour may rely on that breach to obtain compensation, provided he proves a personal loss.

What few people know is that this decision was made at a time when case law was hesitant. Some judges considered that the permission acted as a shield. The Supreme Court put an end to this uncertainty.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The Supreme Court relies on Article 1382 of the Civil Code (now Article 1240 since 2016), which provides: "Any act of man, which causes damage to another, obliges the person by whose fault it occurred to make reparation." In planning law, a breach of regulations constitutes a fault. But this fault must be established, and planning permission must not be an obstacle.

The lower court judges (the court of appeal) had considered that planning permission amounted to a derogation. The Supreme Court answers them: no. Planning permission is an individual administrative act verifying the compliance of the project with planning rules. It cannot, by itself, create an exception to the regulations. For a derogation to exist, a specific procedure is required (for example, an authorisation from the departmental land development commission, or a reasoned decision by the competent authority). In the absence of such a derogation duly granted, the permission does not cover the illegality.

The Court also specifies that planning restrictions (such as height, setback, plot ratio rules) do not have an immediate beneficiary, but are rules of public policy. Any individual who suffers personal loss due to their breach may take action. However, note: you must prove direct and certain loss. For example, loss of view, excessive shading, diminution in the value of your property.

undefined, I have dealt with cases where owners in La Ferté-Bernard faced this problem: a neighbour was building an extra floor without complying with the PLU, and the town hall had granted permission. Thanks to this judgment, they were able to obtain partial demolition and damages.

What this changes for you — practically

This decision has practical implications for several profiles.

Owner-occupier or landlord: If your neighbour builds in breach of the PLU (excessive height, encroachment, etc.), even if he has planning permission, you can take action. You must show personal loss: loss of sunlight, obstructed view, nuisance, diminution in value of your property. For example, in Le Lude, if a new building deprives you of a view over the valley, you can claim compensation. The court may order demolition and/or damages. In practice, you must act quickly: before the works are completed or within 5 years of completion (the general limitation period).

Buyer of real estate: Before buying, check that existing buildings comply with the PLU. A seller who obtained planning permission for an illegal extension could be sued by neighbours after the sale, and you would then be involved in the dispute. Ask for a certificate of non-challenge from neighbours.

Co-owner: If the co-owners' association or a co-owner carries out works without complying with the PLU (e.g., creation of a roof terrace exceeding the permitted height), other co-owners can take action, even if permission was obtained.

Tenant: Are you suffering nuisance? You can also take action, provided you prove personal loss (disturbance of enjoyment). For example, if the construction of a neighbouring building deprives you of light, you can claim a rent reduction or damages.

However, note: the civil court cannot annul the planning permission (that is a matter for the administrative court). But it can find a breach of the regulations and order measures to stop the disturbance (demolition, compliance) and/or compensate the loss.

If you are in this situation, you must act fast. Gather evidence: photos, bailiff's report, cadastral plan, planning certificate. Consult a lawyer specialised in property law to assess your chances.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Check the PLU before any project: Before buying land or applying for planning permission, consult your municipality's Local Development Plan (available at the town hall or online). Check rules on height, distance, external appearance. In La Ferté-Bernard, for example, the PLU may require slate roofs or limited heights.
• Obtain a planning certificate: This official document tells you the rules applicable to your plot. It is free and provides binding information. Request it before any financial commitment.
• Do not blindly rely on planning permission: As the judgment reminds, permission does not guarantee compliance. If in doubt, consult an architect or a lawyer lawyer to check the project before starting works.
• In case of dispute, act quickly: If you notice an infringement, send a recorded letter to the town hall reporting the illegality. At the same time, apply to the civil court for an expert assessment and interim measures (suspension of works). The time limit to act is 5 years from completion of works.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This 1976 judgment is part of a consistent line of Supreme Court decisions. It has been confirmed several times. For example, in a judgment of 19 March 1997 (No. 95-10.847), the Court reiterated that planning permission does not prevent a neighbour's action based on breach of planning regulations. Similarly, in a judgment of 10 September 2015 (No. 14-16.002), it specified that the mere existence of permission is not enough to exclude fault.

Since 1976, the trend has even been towards strengthening protection for third parties. Courts require less and less an exceptional loss: mere visual inconvenience or loss of value may suffice. However, the court may refuse demolition if it is disproportionate to the loss (e.g., if the construction is nearly complete and the breach is minor). But in cases of height or distance, demolition is often ordered.

What this means for the future: owners must be all the more cautious because they can be sued even after obtaining permission. Planning law is becoming increasingly protective of third parties.

What you must absolutely remember

FAQ:

1. Does planning permission protect against neighbour actions? No, not automatically. If the construction breaches the PLU, neighbours can take action.
2. Can I get an illegal construction demolished at my neighbour's? Yes, if it causes you personal loss and the breach is established. The court may order demolition.
3. What are the time limits to act? You have 5 years from completion of works to bring a court action. Before completion, you can apply for an injunction.
4. What if the town hall refuses to intervene? You can apply to the administrative court to challenge the permission, but also to the civil court for compensation.
5. Do I have to prove loss? Yes, personal and direct loss: loss of view, shading, diminution in value, etc. A bailiff's report is strongly recommended.

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