Written by Bas van Vliet and Noa Dik
The Amsterdam City Council was not permitted to withdraw the Bloemendalerpolder development plan, an instrument that has played a crucial role in safeguarding the phasing, cost recovery, and quality of public space since the start of area development in Weespersluis. This was the ruling of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State on June 3, 2026. The ruling is an important landmark decision regarding the relationship between zoning plans, development plans, and private law agreements under the Environment and Planning Act.
Source: Shutterstock
Reason: municipality withdraws development plan
In the Bloemendalerpolder, a former agricultural area between Weesp and Muiden (now part of the municipality of Amsterdam), a new residential area with 2,750 homes is being built. The accompanying development plan – adopted in 2016 and revised in 2020 – includes, among other things, phasing rules that ensure green spaces and play facilities are realized simultaneously with the housing construction.
On July 10, 2025, the Amsterdam City Council decided to withdraw the development plan, as a result of which the development plan is no longer part of the temporary section of the environment plan (the amending decree). The municipality argued that the plan had become superfluous: GEM Bloemendalerpolder CV (the developer) had by then acquired all the land, cost recovery was secured under private law via the so-called SUOK (Cooperation and Implementation Agreement), and most phasing rules had allegedly been “worked out”.
Three residents' organizations lodged an appeal. They feared, among other things, that the cancellation of the development plan would lead to the construction of homes without sufficient recreational green spaces, swimming facilities, and playgrounds for young people.
Background: zoning plan and development plan as an integrated system
For a proper understanding of the matter, the relationship between the two planning forms involved is important.
The zoning plans 'Bloemendalerpolder Weesp' and 'Bloemendalerpolder former territory of Muiden' (both adopted on July 11, 2016) are general in nature. The starting point was, as stated in the explanatory notes to the zoning plans: “a general zoning plan with a direct building permit as much as possible.” The plan establishes the main outlines of the urban structure but offers freedom regarding the positioning of housing, amenities, access roads, and green spaces..
The Division confirms that the development plan is more than a financial instrument: it also contains a spatial component with phasing and quality requirements that is essential for the coherence and integrated development of the planning area. As a complement to the general zoning plan – which establishes spatial possibilities but lacks detailed guidance – the development plan offers the public law safeguard that prevents a predominantly 'red' development from arising within the broad 'Residential Area' zoning, lacking sufficient recreational green space and play facilities for young people.
In short: the zoning plan broadly determines what may be built; the development plan regulates how many non-profitable facilities must be realized and when. It is precisely this broad character that makes a development plan with phasing rules not superfluous, but necessary. For example, Article 4.4 – to safeguard the parallel development of recreational green spaces – stipulates that the permit for the construction of the 1500and a dwelling in the development area cannot be granted before 50% of the structural green and blue infrastructure to be realized has been brought into development. Consequently, this constitutes a potential ground for refusal of the relevant environmental permit.
Two questions, two no's
The Department has answered the following questions:
- Should the council withdraw the exploitation plan because cost recovery is secured via the SUOK?
- Was the council allowed to withdraw the development plan because it was supposedly “fully developed”?
Private law agreements are not sufficient.
It was not in dispute between the parties that the rules in question regarding phasing and green realization are necessary from the perspective of “balanced allocation of functions to locations” within the meaning of Article 4.2, paragraph 1, of the Environment and Planning Act. The debate therefore did not revolve around the content and necessity of the rules, but solely around the question of whether the SUOK could serve as a replacement.
The Division answered that question in the negative. The phasing and quality rules have direct consequences for the physical living environment and constitute grounds for refusal of environmental permits (Article 5.18 of the Environment and Planning Act and Article 8.0a of the Decree on the Quality of the Living Environment) as well as a basis for enforcement requests. Although the SUOK and the associated Programs of Requirements (PvEs) contain agreements binding under private law regarding the layout, phasing, and quality of public space, this agreement has no effect on third parties and is not a public law framework for assessing permit granting. Residents cannot rely directly on the SUOK and are dependent on municipal supervision and enforcement.
In this regard, the Division makes a sharp distinction: private agreements may predominate for cost recovery. However, this expressly does not apply to rules that ensure a balanced allocation of functions to locations – these require anchoring under public law.
The operational plan has not been developed.
The municipality argued that all assessment moments had passed and that the plan had therefore been finalized. The Division rejected this position. It was established that not all functions at the location have been realized and that not all requirements of – in particular Article 4 of the development plan – have been met. The municipality itself acknowledged this at the hearing: various required works and facilities have not yet been (fully) realized, not all environmental permits have been granted, and not all granted environmental permits are irrevocable. The Division therefore concludes that the council was not permitted to adopt the amendment decision solely on the grounds that the development plan had allegedly been finalized. This does not mean, therefore, that the phasing rules may not be withdrawn, but rather that such a withdrawal must be better substantiated, given that they were established precisely with a view to a balanced allocation of functions to locations.
The Division therefore annuls the decision to amend due to a conflict with Article 4.2, paragraph 1, of the Environment and Planning Act.
What changes in practice?
Important detail: the amendment decision had already been suspended retroactively by the preliminary relief judge on September 22, 2025. The development plan therefore applied as part of the environment plan throughout the entire intervening period. The annulment on June 3, 2026, definitively confirms this: the development plan is and remains part of the temporary section of Amsterdam's environment plan.
The most direct consequence is that the phasing rules from Article 4 of the 1st revision of the development plan – including the requirements regarding parallel green development and the link between the number of permitted dwellings and the realization of green facilities – apply to the assessment of applications for environmental permits and enforcement requests.
The Division leaves unanswered the question of whether current and future environmental permits in the area are in line with those phasing rules, but that question is certainly obvious and will undoubtedly arise in practice.
The lesson: public law cannot be contracted away.
The Division draws a clear line: private law does not replace public law regarding spatial safeguards for third parties. As long as not all envisaged functions in an area have been realized and not all requirements of the development plan have been met, a municipality cannot withdraw the plan by invoking a private agreement or a presumed “completed” status. Particularly in cases where the zoning plan is general in nature and contains no detailed phasing, the ruling emphasizes that withdrawing a development plan without an equivalent public-law alternative can lead to a loss of legal certainty and control, posing risks to livability and green spaces in the area. That this is not merely an academic concern is evident from the administrative report of the Amsterdam Court of Audit dated April 1, 2025: in new Amsterdam residential areas, the municipality's own reference standards for green spaces, sports facilities, and play areas are systematically not met, and in practice, it proves increasingly difficult to find the necessary space for this in a timely manner.[1] The more homes are added, the greater the need for those facilities becomes. A development plan with clear phasing rules is therefore not an obstacle, but a necessary guarantee that the original principles for a balanced and livable development in a neighborhood like Bloemdalerpolder are actually adhered to.
Judgment: Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 3 June 2026, ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:3180, case number 202504519/1/R1. Interim relief: Judge for Interim Relief, Administrative Jurisdiction Division, 22 September 2025, ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:4476, case number 202504519/2/R1.
[1] 'Building the complete city' Amsterdam Court of Audit, 1 April 2025, p. 5.
