Legal Question about Residential Destination and Permits

Questioner

In our street a house was sold to people whose backyard borders this house. They have received a permit to replace the front facade of this building with a hinged facade. In addition, they have received an exit permit, for which a green area from our street must be removed. We have contested this last one in vain. Initially, the intention was to make a garage in the part that is now the living room, next to the garage and carport that they have on their adjacent yard and that belong to their main residence. In order to maintain the 'residential' destination, a wet cell has been drawn on the first floor. We received the text below from a retired civil servant who came to our aid. 'Looking at the definition of 'dwelling' and 'residential property', the creation of a garage in the residential property for the benefit of someone else is, in my opinion, in conflict with the meaning given in these definitions, namely that there must be spaces that are exclusively intended for the housing of one separate household. According to the intention of the applicant, however, a situation is created here in which the space in the main building is divided for the benefit of two different 'households', namely the garage for a household that stays or lives somewhere else, or even does not form a household at all, but represents a business interest, and the rest of the residential property for the main resident. It is also difficult to maintain that this increases the living pleasure of the main resident(s).' Now our question: The applicant has now had it put on the drawing that the space on the ground floor is an 'other usable space' instead of a garage. Does the argument mentioned above, of the official, remain valid? The 'living space' on the first floor is very small and consists of 1 single room, so the owner will not live there, as he/she lives in a large mansion with his/her family.

Lawyer

the argument does not hold unless the factual situation is different. Of course it is important whether the house and the wet room are occupied or not. I do not know, read, all the details, but I get the impression that the law is being abused improperly.

Questioner

I don't quite understand your answer.... it also seems quite difficult for you to fathom a complicated problem in this way. Do I understand correctly that the building in question that has the 'Residential' designation must actually be occupied by a single household? The living area (read: wet room, kitchenette, toilet and living space) on the first floor will not be occupied by the owners because their main residence will be in the adjacent house, read: 'large mansion'. The ground floor, now designated as 'other commercial space' (but this will really become a garage, because why else apply for a driveway permit and install a hinged facade) will be intended for the owners. In my opinion, there will be a division for the benefit of different households. And that cannot be the intention, in my opinion? The permit states that it is only for personal use, but how is that possible if their main residence is at a different address? You can only be registered at 1 address, can't you?

Lawyer

I have the impression that residential zoning is being created on improper land. I can provide more detailed advice based on written documents. It is indeed not possible to be registered at multiple addresses with the population department.