There seems to be hope again for Club Brugge in the infamous stadium case. In his advice, the first auditor at the Council of State rejected the objections of eleven local residents against two decisions of the Bruges municipal council. In principle, the Council of State must rule on this file within 60 days. The project for the new football stadium on the Olympia site in Sint-Andries has been going on for 20 years.
There are currently three lawsuits ongoing in the Bruges stadium file. Eleven local residents have appealed to the Licensing Council against the environmental permit granted by the Flemish Government for the construction of a new Club Stadium.
Parking ordinance
However, the Council for Permit Disputes is awaiting the judgment of the Council of State in two other files. Because the same neighbors have also objected to the new parking ordinance of the City of Bruges and to the road for the new neighborhood park and football stadium.
The arguments were made before the Council of State on Friday. Master Lippens, who defends the interests of the eleven opponents of the stadium, stated that the parking regulations of the City of Bruges were amended to suit Club Brugge.
“The new parking regulation is tailor-made for Club Brugge and does not serve the public interest”
“The fact that every new construction project must meet all parking requirements on its own site has been deleted in the new regulation. This does not serve the public interest and has a major impact on other construction projects on Bruges territory,” said the lawyer, who demanded that the parking regulation be deleted.
Minor change?
According to Master De Preter, the lawyer for the City of Bruges, the opponents of the new stadium interpret the parking regulations incorrectly: “It is only a minor change to the old parking regulations. Now large construction projects are excluded from this, because otherwise you would waste far too much public space. That would be a sign of poor spatial planning.”
“Remember that Club Brugge canceled its plans for a new stadium along the Blankenberge Steenweg precisely because of this use of space. In October 2020, this football team listened to the Council of State, which ruled that 70 hectares of destination for football – 20 on Jan Breydel and 50 in Sint-Pieters – is too much for a city like Bruges.”
Absurd
Master Van Praet, the counsel for the Flemish Region, compared this file with FC De Kampioenen, given the many legal misunderstandings: “It is an absurd reasoning from a spatial perspective that all fans’ cars should be parked on the site.”
First auditor Tom Dewaele gave the City of Bruges and Blauw-Zwart hope in his advice: “That one sentence in the parking ordinance about sufficient parking spaces on site is not a standard, but a principle. I advise the Council to annul the unfounded appeal.”
In a second file, the same eleven residents of Sint-Andries objected to another decision by the Bruges municipal council. On March 30, 2024, it laid down the building lines and roads in the planned neighborhood park around the new stadium.
“The municipal council has ignored the advice of its own Public Domain service and simply waved away the neighbors’ objections about lighting, tree planting and water management,” Mr. Vandekerckhove argued.
Livable neighborhood?
This lawyer also felt that when constructing the roads, Bruges does not take sufficient account of the fact that the new stadium will attract 40,000 football supporters every two weeks and that 3,000 cars must be accommodated on the site. He calls the decision contrary to the municipal decree and good governance: “This does not ensure a safe and livable neighborhood…”
Meester Defoort, Club Brugge’s lawyer, pointed out that there is now a mobility problem in Sint-Andries: “8,000 cars are parked legally and illegally near the stadium. In the new stadium there will only be 3,000, the other cars will have a place on peripheral parking lots.”
Tree species
“There have already been three judgments against Club Brugge, which have been delaying the file for more than fifteen years. This is also FC De Kampioenen. The municipal council has ruled on mobility, the opponents are now complaining about the greenery, the lanterns in the stadium and the drainage. Only because the green department suggested a different tree species and an overflow instead of water buffering. This is improper citizenship.”
“191 other neighbors are now annoyed by 8,000 cars in front of their front door”
Meesters Verhelst and Ballieu represented 191 other local residents who are getting involved in the legal procedures for the first time and want to make their voices heard: “They are in favor of a new stadium. Not because they are Club fans, but because there are now too many parking problems in their neighborhood. The football fans park in front of their door. The appeal of the eleven opponents is fussy, causes annoyance, stagnation and also delays the construction of a beautiful neighborhood park.”
Ironic
The first auditioner got the last word. Tom Dewaele said: “The Bruges city council has done its job, the arguments of the opponents are too light. I note contradictions with some irony. On the one hand, some neighbors complain about the fact that 3,000 cars will park in the new stadium, while 7,000 motorists now park their cars in the area. And in the other file, they rely on an old parking regulation that states that all parking needs must be realized on their own property. Apparently It’s never good for some people…”
The Council of State reserved its judgment. In principle, a judgment will be issued within 60 days…
