A possibility is not a given: housing for migrant workers is an accommodation function

On February 25, 2026, the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State issued an interesting ruling on whether housing for migrant workers falls under accommodation or residence. This is a topical issue that many employers with international employees have to deal with.

The ruling concerned the construction of accommodation units with a service building for the housing of migrant workers. The initiator had submitted a permit application for this purpose. The permit application was rejected by the municipal executive because the building plan was deemed to be in conflict with the zoning plan and the Building Decree.

According to the municipal executive, the accommodation units did not fall under the permitted accommodation function, but would have a residential function. The construction drawings indicated residential use, because all units had their own entrance and shared kitchen, bathroom facilities, and living room, and were therefore suitable for habitation. The fact that the application explained that the accommodation was for stays of 3 to a maximum of 6 months by persons whose main residence was elsewhere and that a night register was kept for this purpose did not alter this, according to the municipal executive. Because the council believes that this is residential use, the requirements of the Building Decree would also not be met, as different requirements apply to residential use than to lodging.

The Division disagreed with the council. It ruled that, in view of the application and the additional information provided about the use, the units are being used for accommodation in the sense of overnight stays, and not for residential purposes. Providing accommodation is in line with the zoning plan.

Regarding the possibility that the units will be used for residential purposes rather than accommodation, the Division ruled that the fact that the units may be suitable for habitation does not mean that it must be assumed that the environmental permit will actually be applied for for unauthorized residential use.

The Division therefore considers that the council had insufficient grounds to base its refusal of the permit application on an unauthorized intended use for residential purposes. If the accommodation units are in fact used for residential purposes in practice, this is a matter of enforcement, but that is not relevant in the permit procedure.

What can we conclude from this ruling? In a permit procedure concerning the housing of migrant workers, the intended use (for lodging) must be taken as a basis, and not any possible illegal use (for residential purposes) that might also be possible. That is a matter of enforcement.

Do you have questions about housing migrant workers and the requirements that apply? Please contact Gerard van der Wende or Fleur Huisman. 

You can read the ruling here.