Final report of the Joint Licensing Committee: explanation of the key recommendations

On 30 September 2025, the Joint Licensing Committee presented its final report to the Flemish Government. The ambition is clear: a licensing process that is faster, more transparent and more reliable. For citizens, but certainly also for governments and businesses that are currently confronted with complex procedures. What do these reforms mean for you as an initiator, project developer or local authority? Government and environment lawyers Gregory Vermaercke and Elouise Willems clearly summarise the most important recommendations and explain what you can expect in the further process.

1. Preliminary consultation as a right

Every initiator must have the right to preliminary consultation with the government and the relevant advisory bodies. Such consultation may not be refused and must take place within a reasonable period of time. This will help to avoid misunderstandings and surprises during the permit process and improve the quality of the submitted files.

The advice makes it very clear that capacity problems or lack of time cannot be valid reasons for refusing the requested preliminary consultation. In addition, the committee recommends that no additional formal requirements be attached to this consultation.

2. End to 'soft law'

Guidelines, circulars and other forms of 'soft law' may no longer be used as binding standards when assessing licence applications. Only formal legal rules can still serve as grounds for refusal. This increases legal certainty and reduces the risk of arbitrary decisions.

3. Mediation as a fully-fledged alternative and a 'pause button'

In the event of conflicts in the permit process, mediation must be a fully-fledged option. The committee advocates making mediation possible during every phase of the permit procedure.

Although mediation is already possible in practice today, the recommendation introduces two important innovations.

• Firstly, the committee proposes introducing a “pause button” during the application procedure. This pause button temporarily suspends the procedural deadlines, giving the applicant time to resolve any issues that arise during the processing of the application, for example to organise mediation or to respond to advice or objections. The advice explicitly emphasises that this option cannot be used during the public inquiry or just before the end of the decision period.
• In addition, it is recommended that mediation should also be made possible at the Council for Permit Disputes, even without the prior agreement of all parties involved.

4. Simplification of 'road matters'

The integrated procedure for municipal roads often causes delays and legal uncertainty today. The committee proposes replacing administrative appeals against municipal council decisions with a mandatory review and to separate the powers of the municipal council and the licensing authority more clearly.

Specifically, the committee proposes that objections to the municipal council's decision be included in the administrative appeal against the permit. The competent authority would then request the municipal council to reconsider its decision and thus take a new decision.

A further appeal for annulment against the decision on the road case before the Council of State remains possible, but this appeal would become moot as soon as the Council for Permit Disputes is seized with an appeal against the (substantive) environmental permit.

5. Comprehensive social assessment

Every permit decision must be based on a comprehensive social assessment. Not only the legal criteria, but also the social, economic and societal added value of a project must be taken into account in the decision-making process.

The proposed amendment to the decree makes it possible not only to assess the nuisance for local residents or the (un)desirability of an application, but also to explicitly include the social and socio-economic added value in the decision-making process.

6. Fewer public inquiries

The number of public inquiries should be limited to one (or a maximum of two in the event of an appeal). This reduces the administrative burden and speeds up the procedure without limiting the opportunities for stakeholders to have their say.

If, in the context of an administrative appeal, it is decided to organise a second public inquiry, the committee proposes that the draft decision of the competent authority be submitted at this stage. All parties involved are expected to put their cards on the table at this stage; those who fail to do so risk being unable to invoke new legal remedies at a later stage.

In the same vein, the committee recommends that appeals to the Council for Permit Disputes should only contain arguments that were raised during this public inquiry or that directly result from its findings.

7. Special evidential value for studies

Scientific studies and reports prepared by recognised experts should be given special evidential value. Anyone wishing to challenge a study must now substantiate this with objective and concrete evidence. This requirement applies equally to the government and to advisory bodies.

8. 'No objection, no appeal'

The committee advocates an (optimised) reintroduction of the so-called duty of attention: anyone who does not lodge an objection during the public inquiry cannot lodge an appeal at a later date. This promotes legal certainty and prevents strategic appeals:

• Even those who did not submit any objections or comments during the public inquiry can still lodge an administrative appeal.
• An appeal to the Council for Permit Disputes is only open to those who raised objections to the draft decision during the public inquiry, and then only for reasons related to those objections.
• This restriction does not apply if (i) the arguments put forward arise from the final decision and not from the draft decision, (ii) a draft refusal ultimately results in a permit or vice versa, or (iii) no public inquiry was organised on the application.

9. Reasonable restrictions on access to proceedings before the Council for Permit Disputes

Access to appeal proceedings must once again be subject to reasonable conditions. Only those who can demonstrate a concrete and personal interest may lodge an appeal. This will prevent abuse of proceedings.

It is proposed to explicitly exclude purely commercial interests, as well as appeals that can be shown to be based on purely financial motives.

Anyone lodging an appeal must demonstrate their interest in each individual ground they put forward. The court will only consider those grounds for which an interest has been demonstrated. This shortens the duration of proceedings and increases efficiency.

10. Withdrawing a licence without acknowledging illegality

It should be possible to withdraw a licence during proceedings before the Council for Licence Disputes and replace it with an improved version, without this automatically being considered an acknowledgement of illegality. This creates more flexibility and legal certainty for initiators.

The licence holder should also have the right to request the government to revoke a licence and replace it with an improved decision, or to apply for that improved decision themselves.

11. Revision of Article 159 of the Constitution

The committee proposes revising Article 159 of the Constitution so that the illegality of individual administrative acts (such as environmental permits) can only be invoked within the statutory appeal period. This strengthens the final legal certainty of permits.

Would you like to engage an experienced solicitor for the reforms in the permit process?

NOMA is a niche specialist in government and environmental law and is closely monitoring the further development of these reforms. Our lawyers translate policy developments into practical strategies for initiators, businesses and local authorities.

Would you like to know what these changes mean for your project in concrete terms? Feel free to contact our team specialising in government and the environment. We are happy to think along with you.