Consulting a building permit application that has been filed: land monitoring before any appeal

A sign appears on the plot next to an office building held in a portfolio. A competitor files an application for authorisation for a retail space two hundred metres from an asset undergoing repositioning. In both cases, the question facing the decision-maker is not legal but one of timing: how much time is left to act, and which act has already started the limitation period running. Planning litigation is rarely lost on the merits; it is lost on inadmissibility, for want of having identified in time the starting point of the two-month period or of having carried out the notification required by Article R. 600-1 of the French Urban Planning Code. This guide deals with access to the file at the town hall and online, the display rules and the decision timetable of the third party considering challenging a neighbouring or competing project.

What can be consulted, and when: the distinction between examination and decision

The first methodological error is to believe that a permit file is accessible as soon as it is filed. It is not.

During examination: the notice of filing, and nothing else

Article R. 423-6 of the French Urban Planning Code requires the municipality to display a notice of filing at the town hall, within fifteen days of the filing of the application and throughout the examination. The content of this notice is set by Article A. 423-1: registration number, date of filing, identity of the applicant, nature of the project, address of the plot. This is summary information, but it is the only public signal available before the decision, and it is precisely the document that land monitoring must capture.

The file itself, at this stage, falls outside the right of access. Article L. 311-2 of the French Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration (CRPA) reserves disclosure to completed documents and excludes documents preparatory to an administrative decision as long as that decision has not been taken. A request for disclosure of the plans, the explanatory statement or the impact study made during the examination will therefore meet a lawful refusal, unless a public participation procedure or public inquiry opens specific access.

After the decision: a file that can be disclosed to anyone

Once the permit has been issued, expressly or tacitly, the nature of the document changes. The order is an administrative act whose disclosure to any person is provided for by Article L. 2121-26 of the French General Local Authorities Code. The accompanying file falls within the right of access to administrative documents under Articles L. 300-1 et seq. of the CRPA. The Commission for Access to Administrative Documents (CADA) consistently holds that the permit application file may be disclosed to any applicant once the decision has been taken, subject to the redaction of the particulars protected by Article L. 311-6 of the CRPA, in particular those that would infringe privacy or business confidentiality.

Operational consequence: consulting a building permit application that has been filed does not mean the same thing depending on the date. Before the order, monitoring is done on the notice of filing. After the order, it is done on the complete file, with an enforceable right.

Access channels: town hall, electronic means, open data

A request for disclosure at the town hall

The request is addressed to the examining department or to the municipality's general secretariat. Article L. 311-9 of the CRPA leaves the applicant the choice of the means of access: free consultation on site, a copy supplied at the applicant's expense, or sending by email free of charge where the document exists in electronic form. Since the mandatory electronic filing in municipalities of more than 3,500 inhabitants, provided for in Article L. 423-3 of the French Urban Planning Code and applicable since 1 January 2022, most recent files are natively digital. Sending by electronic means should therefore be expressly requested: it saves several days on a two-month timetable.

Two formal precautions. First, identify the file by its registration number (PC format followed by the municipality's INSEE code, the year and the sequence number), taken from the notice of filing or from the sign. Second, date the request and keep proof of sending: it is this that will start the period for implied refusal.

The CADA reflex, and its incompatibility with the appeal period

Silence kept for more than one month by the administration on a request for disclosure amounts to a decision of refusal (Article R. 311-12 of the CRPA). Referral to CADA, within two months of that express or implied refusal (Article R. 343-1 of the CRPA), is a mandatory prerequisite to any court action against the refusal of disclosure. The commission then has one month to give its opinion (Article R. 343-3).

The arithmetic must be measured: one month of silence, two months to refer, one month of examination. The procedure for access to administrative documents is structurally longer than the two-month period for appealing against the permit. No decision-maker should make the filing of an appeal conditional on first obtaining the file. The correct chronology is the reverse: file the appeal within the time limit, then supplement the grounds once the file has been obtained, within the limit of the crystallisation of grounds.

Online consultation of building permits: what it really allows

The expression online consultation of building permits covers heterogeneous realities. There is no public national database from which the graphic documents of a file can be downloaded. Three resources can nevertheless be used for monitoring.

• The Sitadel database, produced by the statistical data and studies service (SDES) of the ministry responsible for housing and released as open data, records the planning authorisations issued with their location, nature and area. It allows systematic scanning by municipality or by sector, with a publication lag that makes it unsuitable for real-time detection.
• Municipal official bulletins. The City of Paris periodically publishes the lists of applications filed and decisions given on planning authorisations. For an investor whose portfolio is concentrated in a few arrondissements, this review is the most reliable detection system.
• The digital planning authorisation portals (GNAU) deployed by municipalities and groupings of municipalities, and the Plat'AU platform on the examination side. These tools are designed for filing and for exchange between departments, not for access by third parties. Some local authorities nevertheless attach to them a public register of the files filed.

In practice, effective monitoring combines a monthly open data scan, monitoring of municipal publications and a regular physical visit to the town hall for sectors of interest. For a strategic asset, watching the neighbouring plot remains the fastest sensor.

The certificate of no appeal (R. 600-7)

Article R. 600-7 of the French Urban Planning Code allows any person to obtain from the registry of the administrative court a document certifying the absence of any court action or appeal against a permit, or indicating, in the opposite case, the date on which the appeal was registered. This tool is of most interest to the purchaser or the lender: it removes litigation uncertainty before a condition precedent is lifted or funds are released. It is also of interest, conversely, to the third party who wants to check whether an appeal has already been brought by another neighbour, and to choose between a voluntary intervention and an appeal of their own. The drafting of the condition precedent of a final permit and the chronology of the operation are detailed in our article on land acquisition subject to a permit free of appeals.

Display: the act that triggers the bar on appeals

The whole of the third party's strategy turns on one point: identifying which display starts the period running. There are two, and only one counts.

Display at the town hall and display on the site

Article R. 424-15 of the French Urban Planning Code requires two separate publicity measures. The beneficiary displays the permit on the site, visibly from the outside, from the notification of the order or from the date on which the tacit permit is acquired, and throughout the works. In parallel, an extract of the permit is displayed at the town hall, by the competent authority, within eight days of the express or tacit issue, for two months.

Display at the town hall is a general publicity measure. It does not start the third-party appeal period running. That period is governed by Article R. 600-2:

The period for court action against a decision of non-opposition to a prior declaration or against a building, development or demolition permit runs, as regards third parties, from the first day of a continuous two-month period of display on the site of the documents referred to in Article R. 424-15.

Two elements must be read together. The period starts on the first day of display, but it genuinely begins to run only if that display continues without interruption for two months. A sign torn down after three weeks and put back a month later clears nothing: the continuous period starts again. In practice, regular and continuous display opens a two-month window for challenge, which closes on the same day as the end of the display period.

The particulars on the sign

Articles A. 424-15 to A. 424-19 of the French Urban Planning Code set the content and format of the sign: a rectangular shape with dimensions greater than eighty centimetres, particulars legible from the public highway, the identity of the beneficiary, the date and number of the permit, the nature of the project, the area of the plot, the height of the building, the floor area, and the address of the town hall where the file may be consulted. Article A. 424-17 further requires an indication of the means and time limits for appeal, including a reminder of the notification obligation under Article R. 600-1.

These particulars are not decorative. Their absence or substantial inaccuracy weakens the triggering of the period. A sign that does not state the address at which the file may be consulted, or that omits the particular relating to the means and time limits for appeal, deprives the third party of information necessary for the exercise of the right of appeal.

Proof of display

The administrative courts place the burden of proving the regularity and continuity of the display on the beneficiary of the permit, who generally establishes it by three reports from a commissaire de justice (bailiff): at the start, during, and at the end of the two-month period.

The third party therefore has a symmetrical interest in building their own evidence. On the day a sign is spotted, the useful sequence is as follows: a time-stamped photograph of the sign and its immediate surroundings, a complete record of the particulars, then, if the stakes justify it, a commissaire de justice's report establishing either the absence of display on a given date, or the irregularity of the particulars, or the discontinuity. This report has a dual function: it preserves an option of appeal beyond the apparent window, and it opens the negotiation with the applicant from a documented position of strength.

The third party's decision timetable

For the investor, the question of third-party appeals against building permits comes down to four time limits, which must be treated as a decision timetable and not as a procedural notice.

Two months: the period for court action

The period for an appeal for abuse of power (recours pour excès de pouvoir) is two months from the first day of the continuous period of display on the site. It is computed from date to date. For a tacit permit, the starting point is the same: the absence of a physical order does not prevent display, which then relates to the particular of the date on which the tacit permit was acquired.

Practice requires reasoning in the opposite direction to intuition. The useful time is not two months: one must deduct the time to obtain the file, the time for technical analysis of the project against the local urban plan, and the drafting time. On an office or multi-unit residential file, a decision to proceed taken after the sixth week forces the filing of a summary application.

Fifteen clear days: the notification under Article R. 600-1

Article R. 600-1 of the French Urban Planning Code requires the author of a court appeal, as of an administrative appeal, to notify the appeal to the author of the decision and to the holder of the authorisation, by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, within fifteen clear days of the filing of the appeal. The sanction is inadmissibility.

This is the most frequent cause of rejection of third-party appeals. Three points need attention. The notification is addressed to the holder of the permit as named in the order, at the address stated there, even if the operation has since been transferred. It must relate to the appeal itself, and not to a mere letter of intent. It applies to the administrative appeal to the issuing authority (recours gracieux) as to the court appeal, which unrepresented third parties regularly overlook.

The administrative appeal to the issuing authority: a lever for extension, a notification trap

Brought within the two-month period, the administrative appeal addressed to the authority that issued the permit preserves the period for court action: a new two-month period runs from the express rejection, or from the implied rejection arising from silence kept for two months. It is a useful instrument for choosing a course. It leaves time to obtain the file, to quantify the impact of the project on the asset held, and to open a discussion with the applicant without yet having gone to court.

It has two drawbacks. It is subject to the notification under Article R. 600-1. And it informs the beneficiary of the existence of an opposition, which may speed up the works timetable or lead the beneficiary to seek an early regularisation.

The administrative appeal must also be distinguished from the request addressed to the prefect asking the prefect to refer the permit to the administrative court under Article L. 2131-6 of the French General Local Authorities Code. This step does not extend the third party's own appeal period. It must never take its place.

Six months after completion: the lock of Article R. 600-3

Where display is non-existent or irregular, the two-month period does not run. The bar on appeals is not, however, set aside indefinitely. Article R. 600-3 of the French Urban Planning Code closes any action for annulment of a building or development permit once six months have elapsed from completion of the building or development, completion being established by the declaration certifying completion and conformity of the works provided for in Article R. 462-1.

This limit is decisive for the third party who discovers a project late. It requires the completion to be dated, and therefore a request to the municipality for disclosure of the declaration of completion, which is an administrative document that may be disclosed. After that date, the debate moves to the civil ground, that of abnormal neighbourhood disturbance or easements, the economics of which are different. Compensation of neighbouring owners and claims for indemnity between the parties involved are set out in our article on abnormal neighbourhood disturbance caused by a building site.

Finally, it should be recalled that the competent authority may withdraw an unlawful permit only within three months of its decision (Article L. 424-5 of the French Urban Planning Code). An administrative appeal brought late, beyond that period, can no longer succeed by way of withdrawal.

Standing to act: the entry filter

Identifying the permit and respecting the time limits is not enough. The legislature has locked access to the courtroom.

Article L. 600-1-2 of the French Urban Planning Code makes the admissibility of an appeal by a person other than the State, a local authority or an association subject to a showing that the building, development or project is liable to directly affect the conditions of occupation, use or enjoyment of the property that the person holds or lawfully occupies. An allegation of abstract loss of value or of commercial competition is not enough: this is a structuring point for the investor whose real motivation is economic.

Article L. 600-1-3 specifies that, save in particular circumstances, standing to act is assessed at the date of display at the town hall of the applicant's application. In other words, the acquisition of a neighbouring property after the filing of the application does not, in itself, confer standing to challenge the permit. In a defensive acquisition strategy, the date of filing of the neighbour's application therefore becomes a due diligence item in its own right.

For associations, Article L. 600-1-1 requires that the articles of association were filed at the prefecture at least one year before the display at the town hall of the applicant's application. Finally, Article R. 600-4 requires that the application state the identity and address of the claimant and the nature of the project, and be accompanied by the documents establishing the lawful nature of the occupation or holding of the property: title deed, promise of sale, lease or preliminary contract.

Choosing a course: challenge, suspend, negotiate or abstain

An appeal is only one option among several, and it is not always the most profitable.

First, suspension. The interim suspension application (référé-suspension) under Article L. 521-1 of the French Code of Administrative Justice remains the most effective tool for preventing the start of works, the administrative courts traditionally accepting a presumption of urgency in building permit matters. Article L. 600-3 of the French Urban Planning Code nevertheless confines its use: the application in summary proceedings may be filed only until the end of the period for crystallisation of grounds. This period results from Article R. 600-5, introduced by Decree No. 2018-617 of 17 July 2018: the parties may no longer raise new grounds once two months have elapsed from the communication of the first statement of defence. The window for suspension is therefore short and depends on the pace of the opposing defence. On the use of the interim suspension application and the construction of an appeal on the merits, see our analysis of the offensive strategy for challenging a building permit.

Next, the time to judgment. Article R. 600-6 directs the judge to rule within ten months on appeals against permits to build a building comprising more than two dwellings or against permits to develop a subdivision. This acceleration, combined with the judge's powers of regularisation under Articles L. 600-5 and L. 600-5-1, reduces the nuisance value of a dilatory appeal: partial annulment and a stay of proceedings for the purpose of regularisation have become the ordinary response to defects that can be regularised.

Finally, the risk. Article L. 600-7 allows the beneficiary of the permit to ask the judge, by separate statement, to order the author of the appeal to pay damages where the right of appeal is exercised in conditions that exceed the defence of the author's legitimate interests and cause excessive harm. As for a negotiated exit, it is regulated: Article L. 600-8 requires that any settlement by which the claimant undertakes to withdraw in return for a sum of money or a benefit in kind be registered with the tax authorities within one month of its conclusion, on pain of nullity, the applicant having a right of recovery within five years. An unregistered settlement is not an agreement: it is an exposure.

Conclusion

Land monitoring does not consist in watching permits, but in watching dates. The notice of filing displayed at the town hall under Article R. 423-6 fixes the reference for standing to act. Display on the site under Article R. 600-2 triggers the bar on appeals. The notification under Article R. 600-1 consolidates it. The declaration of completion definitively closes the door six months later. Between these four limits, access to the file is never a precondition to action: the CADA procedure is mechanically slower than the appeal period, and waiting for it amounts to giving up.

The firm's position is therefore consistent on this type of matter. As soon as a project liable to affect an asset held is identified, three acts must be carried out in the same week: a report on the state of the display, a request for disclosure of the complete file addressed to the municipality with a request for sending by electronic means, and an analysis of standing to act in light of the date of display at the town hall of the application. The decision to challenge is then taken, on a costed file. Never let the sixth week pass without having decided: beyond it, the choice is no longer between challenging and negotiating, it is between an improvised summary application and the bar on appeals.

Frequently asked questions

Can a building permit application that has been filed be consulted before the town hall's decision? No, not the file itself. Article L. 311-2 of the French Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration excludes the disclosure of preparatory documents until the decision has been taken. Only the notice of filing, displayed at the town hall within fifteen days of filing and throughout the examination under Article R. 423-6 of the French Urban Planning Code, is accessible. Its content, set by Article A. 423-1, is limited to the registration number, the date of filing, the identity of the applicant, the nature of the works and the address of the plot. Once the permit has been issued, the file may be disclosed to any person, subject to the redactions provided for in Article L. 311-6 of the CRPA.

Does the third-party appeal period run from display at the town hall or display on the site? Exclusively from display on the site. Article R. 600-2 of the French Urban Planning Code sets the starting point at the first day of a continuous two-month period of display on the site of the documents referred to in Article R. 424-15. Display at the town hall of the extract of the permit, within eight days of issue and for two months, is a general publicity measure with no effect on the bar on third-party appeals. A permit regularly displayed at the town hall but never displayed on the site remains open to challenge, subject to the six-month period after completion provided for in Article R. 600-3.

What should be done if the display sign is missing, illegible or incomplete? Have the situation recorded immediately by a commissaire de justice, noting precisely the missing particulars against Articles A. 424-15 to A. 424-19 of the French Urban Planning Code. The absence of regular and continuous display prevents the appeal period from running, since the burden of proving that display rests on the beneficiary of the permit. This report preserves an option of appeal beyond the apparent two-month window. It does not, however, neutralise the six-month ceiling from completion of the works set by Article R. 600-3.

Must an administrative appeal be notified to the holder of the permit? Yes. Article R. 600-1 of the French Urban Planning Code applies to administrative appeals as to court appeals. The notification must be sent by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt to the author of the decision and to the holder of the authorisation, within fifteen clear days of the filing of the appeal, on pain of inadmissibility. Omission of this formality at the administrative stage is one of the most frequent causes of rejection in third-party litigation.

Can an investor who buys a property after the filing of the neighbouring permit challenge it? In principle, no. Article L. 600-1-3 of the French Urban Planning Code provides that, save in particular circumstances, standing to act is assessed at the date of display at the town hall of the applicant's application. A later purchaser is therefore not, by the sole capacity of owner, admissible to bring an action. The date of the notice of filing displayed at the town hall must accordingly be checked at the due diligence stage, in the same way as easements and the rules of the local urban plan.

How long after completion of the works does a permit remain open to challenge? Six months. Article R. 600-3 of the French Urban Planning Code declares inadmissible any action for annulment of a building or development permit brought more than six months after completion of the building, that completion being established by the declaration certifying completion and conformity of the works referred to in Article R. 462-1. This period applies even where display on the site was irregular. Beyond it, the useful routes fall under civil law, notably abnormal neighbourhood disturbance.

How can one check that no appeal has been brought against a permit that has been issued? By requesting the document provided for in Article R. 600-7 of the French Urban Planning Code from the registry of the competent administrative court. This document certifies either the absence of any court action or appeal, or indicates the date on which the appeal was registered. It is available to any person and is a usual closing document for the purchaser of an asset to be developed or for the lender securing a release of funds.