Referred suspension of rehabilitation of real estate complex in Grasse: The TA of (…)

The summary judge of the Nice administrative court issued his order this Monday in a case between Patrick Diter, owner of a real estate complex in Grasse, and the municipality. His request for suspension of the municipal decree refusing the building permit for the rehabilitation of a former woman was rejected.

A rehabilitation project in a natural area

Patrick Diter had submitted a building permit application in April 2024, aiming to rehabilitate an old sheepfold and create 340 m² of floor space. By a decree of June 17, 2024, Christophe Moreldeputy mayor of Grasse, refused this permit, considering that the project ignored several provisions of the local urban planning plan (PLU) applicable to the natural area where the building is located. The decision highlighted in particular the exceeding of the authorized surface limits and the absence of a prior change of destination for this building.

Mr. Diter contested this decision, arguing in particular the heritage interest of the sheepfold and the existence of a tacit permit, which he considered illegally withdrawn.

An order unfavorable to Patrick Diter

To obtain the suspension of the execution of an administrative decision, two conditions must be met: the situation must be of an emergency nature and there must be serious doubt about the legality of this decision. The summary judge of the Nice administrative court found that the second condition was not met in this case. ; he therefore did not have to examine the first condition, relating to urgency.

The judge considered that the arguments put forward by Mr. Diter were not such as to create serious doubt about the legality of the contested decision. According to the court:

– The project, creating a floor area of ​​340 m², exceeded the limits authorized by the PLU in a natural zone (250 m² maximum).

– The other grounds raised by Mr. Diter (absence of adversarial procedure, incompetence of the author of the act, illegality of the other reasons for refusal) were not likely to create serious doubt about the legality of the order. from June 17, 2024.

This decision, taken by the emergency judge, is provisional in nature until the court rules on the action for annulment lodged against the decision in dispute.