Ventilus permit granted, yet the construction site is shut down

Background

On 27 April 2026, the Flemish Government granted five environmental permits for different subprojects forming part of Ventilus. One of these concerns the expansion of the Gezelle high-voltage substation in Bruges. This subproject includes, among other things, the installation of technical infrastructure, paved surfaces, changes to the terrain and vegetation, and interventions affecting water management.

The non-profit organisation Groen lodged an appeal against the permit before the Council for Permit Disputes (Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen – RvVb), together with an application for the ordinary suspension of the permit. Once the works subsequently commenced, the association also filed an application for suspension on grounds of extreme urgency.

In its judgment of 30 September 2026 (RvVb.2627.0073), the Council ruled on the application for suspension on grounds of extreme urgency. It found, prima facie, that the file contained insufficient information regarding the presence of protected plant and animal species and the potential impact of the works on those species. It also appeared that no derogation from the applicable protection prohibitions had been obtained, although the Council considered that there were grounds for such a derogation to have been sought. The permit was therefore suspended.

The Council has not yet ruled definitively on the lawfulness of the permit. In the meantime, however, the works may not continue.

Significance of the judgment

This judgment is of interest for two reasons. First, the Council reaffirms that the species assessment is not a mere paper exercise. Where the specific location or layout of a project gives rise to a reasonable presumption that protected species are present, the permit-granting authority must investigate this with sufficient care.

Second, the case once again demonstrates the importance of the extreme urgency procedure. The works were already under way, and an ordinary suspension procedure lasting several months would have come too late to prevent potential harm to protected species. Through the extreme urgency procedure, however, the non-profit organisation Groen was able to have the further execution of the works halted within just a few days.

This shows that a permit does not guarantee that a project can be completed without interruption as long as annulment proceedings are still pending or may still be brought.

Conclusion

A permit does not necessarily mark the end of legal scrutiny. Before the works begin, it is advisable to verify whether all nature and species protection rules have actually been addressed in the file and in the permit. Anyone who waits until after the permit has been granted, or even until the works have started, to examine whether the project is compatible with the Species Decree (Soortenbesluit) may be faced with a fait accompli.

For applicants, the key message is therefore that a timely and comprehensive assessment of the applicable nature conservation and species protection rules is essential, including obtaining any necessary derogations where required. For third parties, the case demonstrates that even after a permit has been granted, and even once works have commenced, an application for suspension on grounds of extreme urgency may still provide a means of temporarily halting further implementation.

The specialists in our Real Estate team would be pleased to advise you on environmental permits and nature and species protection, and to assist you in proceedings before the Council for Permit Disputes.