A council member does not speak on behalf of the city council

It is a subject that lawyers are frequently asked about: the principle of trust. Citizens and businesses often regard a statement made by a civil servant as a commitment to, for example, grant an environmental permit. If an environmental permit is ultimately not granted, this often causes a great deal of incomprehension. After all, hadn't it already been promised that a development or plan could be carried out? Even when the principle of trust is explained, a negative outcome remains difficult for many citizens and businesses to accept.

That feeling of injustice is even more pronounced when the promise is made not by a civil servant, but by the responsible alderman. That was the case in a ruling by the Gelderland District Court on December 30, 2025. In this case, a project developer wanted to build a house on an agricultural plot without a building area. He thought he had come up with a clever construction that would still allow building on the plot. The adjacent plot had an outbuilding that had been used as a home for years. According to the project developer, this use would fall under transitional law. The idea was to demolish the outbuilding and, as it were, transfer the existing residential function to the adjacent plot, where a new home would then be built.

Months of consultation between the project developer and the municipal executive followed. Ultimately, the municipal executive indicated that it did not wish to cooperate with the plan. The project developer disagreed and submitted a permit application for a deviation from the zoning plan. The municipal council refused to issue the necessary declaration of no objection because it did not wish to cooperate with the project developer's plan. Partly because of this refusal by the municipal council, the municipal executive rejected the permit application.

The project developer then lodged an appeal, partly because he believed that the principle of legitimate expectations had been violated. During the exploratory discussions prior to the permit application, aldermen and civil servants had allegedly given positive signals, which had led the project developer to believe that the permit would be granted. The declaration of no objection should therefore not have been refused.

The court ruled that the appeal based on the principle of legitimate expectations was unfounded. In this case, the refusal to issue a statement of no objection was in itself sufficient grounds for not granting the environmental permit. The statement of no objection is a power vested in the municipal council. The municipal council is not bound by any commitments made by an alderman, because the alderman is not part of the municipal council, but of the executive committee. The municipal council therefore did not act contrary to the principle of trust by refusing to issue a statement of no objection, contrary to any commitments made by the alderman. 

What does this mean in practice? Never simply assume that a statement made by a civil servant, or even an alderman, can be attributed to an administrative body. This will prevent you from raising expectations that cannot be fulfilled. 

You can read the ruling here.