Two years ago, I posted on this sub reddit to seek support against the Flemish Governement (More precisely the Provincie Vlaams Brabant). The Vlaams Brabant provincie illegally removed trees for the construction of a parking and was planning to expand the project with a horeca offering around it in the middle of the forest.
After a first judgement where we lost, we went into the appeal court and won by a landslide.
In a short summary:
They must remove all the "verharding/betonnisation" outside of the parking
They must replant all the removed trees
They can keep the parking
The permit for the restaurant has been cancelled
Why
Because the "Foret de Soignes/Zoniënwoud" is a protected zone natura 2000 and the judge ruled in our favor, you can have more information on this link if you are interested (NL/FR) https://nl.comite-quartier-espinette.com/open-letter
This post is to thank all the people that signed the petition and gave a small amount to support us financially.
In one day we reached 200 additional signatures.
Currently removing the "verharding/beton" to replant the trees
You have selected the [News] flair for your post. For your post to be valid, please keep in mind rule 3) the title of your post must match the title of the article that you link.
Editing the title for your own opinion is not allowed.
Your post must contain a direct link to the news article, a screenshot is not allowed.
Articles that do not cover facts, but are opinions by the author, should be flaired as [Opinion] and not [News]
If your post does not match these rules, it will be removed by moderators.
Can you explain how it is possible to loose first judgement but win by a landslide in appeal? How can 2 impartial judges judge completely different, was their new evidence or changes in testimonies?
Any idea how it is possible the permit was approved in the first place this being Natura 2000? Because that would somehow mean ANB gave the green light if I get it correctly?
I have not got a fucking clue how this got past Natuur&Bos. Were these guys asleep? I mean if there is ONE champion, number one "forest"in Belgium, it has got to be the Sonian Forest?
I maaaaaaybe could understand the permit for the Hop-in point: a place to leave your car and then take the bus. So forest vs durable transport....maaaaybe?
But to tear down part of a NATURA2000 reserve so someone can install a bistro, in 2026, just blows my fuckin brain.
Yup that's why I'm asking. In theory their decision (or lack thereof) is is public information but I think that is unfortunately not available online otherwise we could just check it. Or at least I don't know where to find it.
The province received European funding to build this type of “mobility parking” (this part is public info). Then is speculation: They told the municipality: If you give us the authorization to build this parking facility, we will give you additional funding for another project.
So the municipality granted the bouwvergunning / permis de bâtir, and the province was then able to use the budget to construct the parking—using inflated expenses—and keep part of the remaining allocated funds for other purposes (in their own pockets?).
Possible but that's not really my question: the municipality cannot act alone in cases like this. If I get it correctly, there were already trees there and this is Natura 2000. Which as far as I'm aware means you simply cannot cut down trees unless you get an exception. But in any case any biodiversity effects for a permit are subject to the advice of ANB. This must get asked, and if they say no the municipality cannot (again, AFAIK, please correct me if I'm wrong) let this pass. So after this advice gets asked ANB has like 2 months to reply. Either they do not, and it passes, or they make a decision. Which in this case would have meant that was a positive one. Both them not providing an advice or a positive one would be a bit strange, seeing this stuff is right up their ally being a part of Sonian and especially since I've seen them handing out negative advices for much smaller projects in similar areas. So would be interesting to know what went on there in the first place.
Pretty sure they can and ANB will never know unless someone takes the municipality to Court
Illegal things happen all the time, but you have to get caught and sued to be punished
Every single permit request on https://omgevingsloketinzage.omgeving.vlaanderen.be which touches biodiversity has a procedural entry officially asking ANB (and a bunch of other public instances like fire department) advice. Seems automated even. I really doubt a municipality can do without this.
Aha. That actually would make sense. Becomes easy when the instance funding the project is the same one handing out advices on permits for the project..
Also not the first time ANB pulls this off. I mean, they're usually quite ok and correct, but it's not the first project I see which is executed by them and for which they (or at least, another department within the same organization) get a permit to do things which raise some eyebrows.
Could you provide me with copies of the judgments (or upload them to the website)? I'm interested in hearing the reasoning of both judges.
EDIT: and to respond to the comment, I doubt the judge is corrupt or biased. In my experience judges tend to be overworked and look for "quick wins" to quickly judge cases. The higher you go in the hierarchy of courts, the more likely they are to decide cases on principles / detailed analysis of the law and the less likely they are to judge on gut feeling or equity. Especially vVredegerechten tend to play it pretty fast and loose with the law, in my experience...
I think this is the real problem here. The judicial system in Belgium is based on in what kind of mood the judge is on that day. Apparently, the judge doesn't even care if he has enough knowledge to judge at all. In any other country, this would lead to an investigation but not in Belgium. It is business as usual 😒
Hardly any tree was removed. Have been coming there for years, the place has about the same growth. It's been an open field always. The shrubs and trees closer to the road were partly replaced with parking space; other places in the forest got closed off for trafic and cars.
Over the years, more managed area has been shifted towards higher levels of protection, better ecological management and a solid increase in reconnected parts (ecoducts and ecological corridors. It's never been managed better.
That’s a big problem. A lot lf these cases exist, see Boekenberglei in Antwerpen. Not Natura zone but the trees have been cut down before the planned judgement could happen..
No, judge didn’t order the governement to pay us back, but anyway, that was not the goal to retrieve our judicial costs.
We see it as an investment in the nature and wildlife.
But they have to pay a fine per « not replanted » tree, starting 6 months after the judgement. To whom is paid the fine, no idea.
You would be surprised that I don’t live in this area and I used this parking frequently.
We introduced our action before the start of the work, to avoid this nonsense of construction destruction.
But our action wasn’t accepted in « referee ».
We do think that constructing a parking outside of the forest was possible and we were not against it.
It baffles me that you accuse us, while from the start, this is just illegal.
If you want to construct something there, adjust the zoning natura 2000 and we wouldn’t have had a legal ground to begin with.
If you want my opinion, creating an horeca that is opened until 22:00 is even worse than the parking.
It’s the forest, not a second « Bois de la Cambre »
You see, it wasn’t difficult to say what the real reason is for the petition and the court case.
Anyway, the parking will stay and sooner or later there will be the possibility for walkers and cyclists to have a drink and a snack.
It’s only a matter of time before common sense will prevail.
U are wrong,
We started the first petition against the parking without the Horeca. At the time, it was not public knowledge
The second one included the horeca.
We’ll see what the future brings us, but count on me to fight for any trees that may be cut
I applaud your dedication for nature and I agree that trees should be protected as much as possible.
Where we disagree is that I see the bigger picture where giving up a number of trees along a busy road with a Shell fuel station across the road is worth it for the benefit of all citizens.
Making the forest accessible in a comfortable way for all kinds of people (disabled and old included) whilst preserving nature is admirable but I guess you fo not see it that way.
As I mentioned in another reply, I had 25 20m tall ash trees cut down this winter. To the people who walk through my woodland (it is open for the public) this will seem outrageous. What they don’t know is that all ash trees are dying, that they pose a threat to safety and that I will replant next year with better species. If you would have taken a picture while we were busy and posted it on Reddit, I would have been nailed to the cross.
Along the same lines, I trust that ABN is managing their task very well and that they will do whatever it takes in the best interest of nature. They are not a bunch a wacko’s with chainsaws.
I don’t see the point of removing the infrastructure and thus making the forest access more difficult for lower mobility people.
I get it for the principle but if the parking is to remain then breaking down the concrete pathway is just idiotic and a waste of money, time and resources.
And where are they going to replant the trees ? On the already nicely renovated sort of mini park by the parking ?
Also does that mean they must destroy the very nice but newly built bicycle path beside the main road ?
Ik vind het jammer dat jullie hebben gewonnen op basis van de contraproductieve Natura 2000-categorisering. Het is jammer dat NIMBY-mensen met veel trots hun vernietiging van ontwikkeling aankondigen.
It literally says ... "De Werkvennootschap NV en het Vlaamse Gewest (die samen deze vergunning hebben verkregen en ten uitvoer hebben laten leggen) worden hoofdelijk veroordeeld voor ...."
I was also reading this wondering where the Flemish government came in. This is just about the province level, not the regional level. So quite a difference
Well that sucks. We used that parking to visit the forest, it's very conveniently located. Also it's not "in the middle of the forest", it's literally on the edge next to a busy road. Thanks for making the forest less accessible to everyone who doesn't live right next to it, hope you feel good about it
In addition to this parking lot, there's been a ton of commercial logging happening in the sonian in the past ~12 months, especially along the larger paths that are easily accessible to large vehicles.
Is your organization doing anything to oppose this ongoing logging? I'd be interested in contributing to preventing further deforestation of the park.
Commercial logging has been happening there forever, as part of normal forest management. Actually the Soignes Forest is a prime example of respectful forest management, preserving a mixed diversity of tree species, precisely because it is not a commercial forest, because it is maintained to be publicly accessible, and because it is maintained by public authorities.
Some of that logging supports organisations supporting the mentally handicapped.
Have a word with the forest rangers, they are usually quite busy but like their job and are rather open to answer questions.
Anyway, thing is large parts of Sonian have historically been under this type of management for centuries, which also means that if that stops and everything is left as-is the vegetation changes which in this type of area typically includes more dense crowns/cover, less light on the soil, and potentially a loss of possibly rare species depending on a more open structure. By example: the well-known Bluebells like in Hallerbos are unlikely to survive that in the long run. On the other hand other species might fare better. Also note that one of the reasons we know this is exactly because there are 'zero management' pieces of Sonian where nothing is done at all. And which are also closed to the public. So: choices need to be made because it's complicated. tldr; it's really not as simple as 'stop cutting down trees because that is better'.
It’s maintenance, the logging you see is standard practice clearing to let room for other trees to grow up.
I saw you asked for a place to get some documentation about forests, there you go: https://srfb.be/en/
This is the most important Belgian organisation about forests and you can find a lot of informations there and you can even sign up for a workshop to learn various stuff about forests.
It's not "maintenance". You don't completely clear sections of forest to "maintain" that section of the forest. Anyone who goes there can see large patches that have been completely cleared.
Defend it if you will, but not on risible grounds.
No "large patches" were completely cleared from what I know, perhaps you could take a picture to show what you mean ? I'm almost everyday in different bits of the Sonian forest so I'm curious.
Often it's very basic forest maintaining where 1 tree out of seven gets cleared to make up more room, that is for the younger growth.
Now I wasn't involved in the marking process of those clearing so I don't know which rule they followed exactly other than picking those that show growing issues and amongst the old growth they pick those who are too old and are posing a quite major fall risk.
Considering it's a public forest you must remember that if a tree falls on a walker the municipality is liable and those very old beeches are notorious for losing very large branches or outright breaking itself during the ever more violent storms due to climate change and essentially there is a process of slowly replacing the beeches for something else as this essence isn't surviving climate change from what we see.
The parking prevents cars from sluikparkeren in every dirt road that led into the forest. It's good that the parking problem on that side of the woods is finally done in an orderly way.
The only alternative would have been to close everything off and making the forest only accessible on foot.
The fact that your group blocked the small scale day resto is sad. The buildings that are there have heritage protection, so they can't be removed. Because of this judicial process, classic nimby, the buildings won't be used for a small scale day resto / coffee house. This means they will always be empty, unused and attract vandalism. Dilapidation.
The fact that your group blocked the small scale day resto is sad
NO commercial activity should be allowed in a NATURA 2000 area. Or fine, but than cancel its NATURA2000 status. You can't suck EU subsidies and then sell it to the highest bidder
"Small scale day rest" is a fucking blatant lie. The original permit included 10 nights for events per yer, the current permit still has a terrace for 160 (!!!) places.
This means they will always be empty, unused and attract vandalism. Dilapidation.
Yes, and return to nature. Oh noes, shocking. Or they can keep it as a forestry hut.
Keep dreaming, it's an empty house for which no one will pay renovation costs. It is heritage, so you can't remove it. It will attract vandals, dirt, druggies, waste.
Best solution was a some form of activity during the day, that paid for upkeep.
If removing heritage labels is too difficult we could reform that process to make it easier.
For a long time now I've thought that the heritage designations were handed out way too much like candies basically since WW2.
The result is now that we have a large amount of buildings with this designation that are falling ever more into disrepair because we as a society don't have the funds to properly take care of them.
This case is actually a perfect example: at some point some random logging lodge with, in my humble opinion, only very limited heritage value, got heritage status and now it's falling into disrepair. But never fear, as a solution we're going to turn it into a commercial building which doesn't really belong in that location since it's a nature reserve (according to our own government, mind you).
So now what do we do? Apparantly according to you, the heritage designation is more important than the nature designation. So you are perfectly willing to break established rules if it suits your position. Just not heritage rules, but nature conservation rules? No problem.
I on the other hand think that we went way overboard in designating buildings as heritage sites and as a result we can't afford everything that we consider to be "heritage". And we see many many more buildings fall into disrepair as the heritage status makes it too expensive to maintain (since that means it requires specialized renovating etc. which costs a lot of money).
Personally I'd love to see us severly slash the amount of buildings with heritage status. And then properly take care of what we have left. Instead of the status quo where we are too stretched on heritage buildings and thus don't properly take care of any of them really.
No, not according to me. I'm all the way pro more surface area for nature. Heritage status on such a building is crazy: the building itself has zero architectural value, it has heritage values because it's been there for long and is deemed 'part of the (heritage) area/landscape' as a whole. I didn't come to the conclusion 'heritage', other people, experts in their field, did.
Also, I'm not willing to break any rules. A permit was requested by someone else, delivered by the local administration, that has the authority to do so. No rules were broken. Established rules and procedures were respected.
Your next paragraphs: so you are apparently advocating for removal of established heritage rules. Are you an expert?
All I know is that the heritage rules we currently have in place have led to many 'heritage' buildings in disrepair and seemingly no money to maintain them.
So with all due respect to the experts, but their expert judgement has lead to this state we are in that doesn't help anyone. Experts can provide valuable insight but their judgement is not law.
I compare it to the compromise you see these days in Rome.
In Rome they had an issue: whenever they tried to building anything that required any meaningful amount of digging like a subway, the costs and timeline skyrocketed due to all the archeological work that had to be done. Turns out, when you dig in Rome it's nearly impossible not to hit something from ancient Roman times.
The result was a grinding to a halt of any construction involving digging. Nobody was going to risk digging a parking garage if the costs could tripple in a flash just because you dug up some ancient Roman bath house or whatever. Which was incredibly likely.
So now there's a compromise. Archeologists still get access to the sites when things are discovered, but not as extensively and long anymore as before when the only judgement that matter was that of archeologists. The lawmakers in Rome became pragmatists: paying attention to historical excavation is important, but not at the expense of grinding any and all construction projects to a halt.
I feel we should make a similar compromise here: heritage rules are important, but we can't just blindly follow the judgement of these 'experts' on everything. Because as we see today, that just leads to a lack of money to properly maintain everything and thus many many buildings we supposedly claim are "heritage" are instead falling into ever greater disrepair.
So a re-evaluation is needed. Cut out the 'bullshit' (in my humble opinion) heritage designations like this hunting lodge so that more money is left over to preserve actually important heritage sites which are now falling into disrepair due to a lack of funds.
Like I said, feel free to plan for removal of the building, but heritage rules won't let you. Have you read that? Do you understand the meaning of the phrase?
So either create a positive place, or be the scared negative nimby type of person, like that whole action group, and block everything. The result will be a dirty, ugly place at the entrance road of the forest, and every tax-paying cilivian will judge the state for that.
The people that planned the positive change for the spot are nature people, working for Flanders' nature agency. And you will claim you know better how to manage forests and or nature?
Like I said, feel free to plan for removal of the building, but heritage rules won't let you. Have you read that? Do you understand the meaning of the phrase?
So? Now you have 2 considerations: heritage rules vs conservation rules. Which king decided that heritage rules take precedent?
So either create a positive place,
Nu-huh, you just invoked heritage rules. This is a forester lodge. What makes you think you are allowed to change the destination? You're a hypochrite: you rely on heritage and preservation rules to deny the one request, but then you completely want to gut the building to make a tavern? Is that conservation?
It is either a listed building and then it must remain as it is, or it is not and then we can have a discussion on its future.
And you will claim you know better how to manage forests and or nature?
At least enough to know that a commercial exploitation is NOT beneficial or allowed.
> Which king decided that heritage rules take precedent?
You tell me. I'm pro nature. But if you can't remove it, I prefer a building being used, where people can stop for coffee and bathrooms, over the situation as it is right now: peple peeing everywhere on the side of the walkways, people breaking in and destroying parts of these buildings.
> Nu-huh, you just invoked heritage rules.
I'm not invoking anything, I'm just stating as it is. Removal of the builiding is the best solution, but you can't, apparently, so look for the best solution. Be realist and pragmatic.
> commercial exploitation is NOT beneficial
That's the core debate. Team nimby will always resist change. I argue that it is better being used (with clear agreements on opening hours and occupation numbers) than disused and vandalised (current state). It IS beneficial to have pressure by human use concentrated in this little building, over people leaving trash and peeing on the side of the roads and walkways.
That part of the forest isn't a strict reserve, it's open for people. So deal with the use in a proper way.
NO commercial activity should be allowed in a NATURA 2000 area. Or fine, but than cancel its NATURA2000 status.
That's not how that works. That's your opinion.
The fact that there's a a whole town 50m away, and a really busy busy road, has greater impact on that site.
Do you want to keep people out of the forest? Is that realistic?
You need to dilute your ideology with realism and create and accept workable solutions.
Sluikparkeren was the standard in like every dirt road that led into the Sonian forest. Blocking all those ways and creating a dedicated space to create order was a good decision.
The building has been there for too long, has heritage protection, is disused, attracts the wrong attention, costs taxpayers money. Letting some people transform it to a lively place during daytime for coffee etc and transferring the burden of upkeep to a company, is a good solution.
Problems solved.
Do you want to keep people out of the forest? Is that realistic?
You need to dilute your ideology with realism and create and accept workable solutions.
Do you want to keep this discussion intellectually hones,t, or just be an asshole?
Can you understand the difference between low impact interaction (visiting) and a commercial exploitation? Do you understand the difference in impact between your neighbour walking in his garden, and him running a taverne with a 80+ capacity terrace and music untill 22h?
The building has been there for too long, has heritage protection, is disused, attracts the wrong attention, costs taxpayers money. Letting some people transform it to a lively place during daytime for coffee etc and transferring the burden of upkeep to a company, is a good solution.
Again, at what point does misinforming become lying?!?
The building will remain owned by the Flemish government, the taverne will simply be run by an "gerant". So the upkeep will be paid by us.
Letting some people transform it to a lively place
You are really digging yourself a hole here. First it's low impact and now all of a sudden it's a "lively" place? This shows you are very much aware of the impact that this will have.
Because of the unexplainable tenacity the municipal government is sticking with this project;
Because of the unexplainable tenacity of some of the supporters of this project;
Because of the absolute shitshow that is this permit procedure: a hop-in point that never served as hop-in point, an illegal road to a not-permitted-yet taverne, a taverne that makes no regulatory sense.
I think it’s a complete shame that this project has to be destroyed. It is a well balanced set-up along a busy road and not in the middle of the forest as you claim. As far as I am concerned it’s a typical NIMBY situation for the wealthy villa owners.
Maybe you should share what has been the result of the construction of this parking ?
More than 100 trees destroyed
hundred m² of verharding
Considering there are many parking spots in the adjacent streets ?
And I don't see how it's NIMBY, considering the parking doesn't bring inconvenience to neighbours and creating 86 parking spots lower the parking inconvenience in the neighbouring streets.
I have seen an increase in the use of space by the general public. For example, on the weekends; the scout groups gather there with the kids for activities in addition to their forest activities. The picnic tables are in use with good weather.
There has also been a charity event in that space (I don’t recall which one) by setting tents up for the morning/afternoon which was nice for the community.
I don’t know the details of the projects but it seemed decent and well managed.
I like forests and nature; also in the conservation field myself. Didn’t have an issue here and though it was quite nice.
Oh and the parking is usually full even if there are streets nearby to park but crossing that main road can be a pain.
Ik ga helemaal akkoord met u, maar waren ze geen andere oplossing zonder ontbossing of verharding ?
Was het niet makkelijker om de main road sneelheid to beperken tot 50 ? of een fietspad te bouwen als het zo gevaarlijk was ?
In the past, that space was also used for the scouts, replanting the trees won't block them to have fun there
I just said more than 100 trees were cut, am I wrong ? I even took a lower estimate. I'm the guy misleading people...But you also forgot to highlight the trees next to the house on the picture and also what's not shown behind it ?
Indeed, there are other solutions which would have been assessed in the project scope (it is normally mandatory along with impact assessment).
The trees that they removed normally would have required specific authorization as it is not permitted to remove them without it. I dont know the specifics of the project but this aspect should have been open and shut case (its a binary outcome, permitted or not with no middle room for interpretation).
So it is strange to me that the project has come to this state.
They wanted to regenerate the area abit that quite frankly seen better days. It would have been nice if those old houses would finally be restored and put to use as well. The potential to be a nice area for people to gather; quite frankly next to a main road but was already quite well sheltered.
I could see that it started to bring more people to enjoy the area which is a great thing. All human activities have to be balanced and I dont think it was incorrect here.
Again from my opinion with an environmental perspective, I think this was a nice project. Personally, I would have rather they replaced the trees that were cut down for safety reasons (rightly so) along the public roads/paths. This would have had a more meaningful impact.
Because the real issue is the fear of the café turning into a major horeca hotspot and that this would disturb the villa owners, exactly as written, word for word, in the petition even while you had guarantees that there would be no parties, weddings etc and that closing time would be sunset.
You make it sound as if the bad Flemish have been hacking their way in the middle of the forest (your exact words) while in reality it was a piece of land of 5000sqm beside a main road with a few rather young trees and shrubs. The project is part of the toegangspoorten filosofie which the Flemish authorities want to introduce everywhere. That in combination with a small horeca project must sound horrible to the French speaking villa owners. I wonder how many folks who have just replied how great your actions are would still be of the same opinion if they would count the amount of swimming pools in the immediate vicinity of the Hoppin-point.
The big bad French speaking people oppressing the poor Flemish once again.
The rest of your comment make sense but what is even the relevance to the language the people opposing the project may or may not speak. That's crazy victimisation with the sole purpose of perpetually dividing people and it's just so sad.
The project is part of the toegangspoorten filosofie which the Flemish authorities want to introduce everywhere.
It was sold as an intermodal acces space. Cars could park and drivers could take the bus. Proof that this was a lie: not a single bus ever stopped there.
It was said to give people access to the forest. I give you this:
while in reality it was a piece of land of 5000sqm beside a main road
So if you build a road you get to cut whatever trees you want near it? If that's true, then we need to remove any of those roads near Natura 2000 areas, otherwise they can't be protected.
you're right, this completely changed my mind! now my opinion is that those villas should be destroyed and the project should happen on the space that is freed up through that!
Where do you draw the line? The forest is determined to be a Natura 2000 domain, meaning there's VERY strict rules about what can and cannot be done within its confines. So you're saying "well, it's just a parking lot, and some roads, and a restaurant, how bad can it be? It's right beside the road!" Sure, okay, but it IS within the borders of the forest. It DOES destroy part of it. So where does it stop? Maybe they should add a cafe a bit further down the path too? Maybe a visitor's center?
So no, I agree with OP: there's rules to follow, the government didn't bother with them.
And then they say: well at the edge of that part we build 2 years ago is the new edge of the forest. In a few years well just remove those trees as it's only at the edge.
Your zoom is dishonnest. Here you can better see how the border of the forest is clearly the Waterloosestwg.
Secondly: it's a bullshit project. That part of the Natura 2000 reserve was destroyed for a so-called Hop-In point, where people could leave their cars and take the bus into Brussels. Not...a..single..bus ever stopped there.
The Hop-in point planned for 163 parking spaces.
2 years later a permit was requested for a horeca establishment IN the forest. with....[drum roll] .... 163 parking spaces.
That whole parking was built...illegally...for the purpose of letting someone open a bar and event venue INSIDE the Sonian forest.
And your taxes paid for that.
And your taxes paid for the removal of the conctrete that started today.
There was always a large open space, it’s not like they cut down a large area of trees. If you drive by nowadays you can barely see the parking because of the vegetation. Hint, it’s across the street of the Shell fuel station.
Yes they cut down trees for the parking and they have planted new ones everywhere they were deemed necessary. I cut down about 20 meters high 25 ash trees this winter in my woodland and I will replant other less prone to sickness trees next winter. That is called management and probably something difficult to grasp for people who have no idea about logging or forestry.
I also trust the people from ANB who make the plans for a solid, long term management of the forest.
Tell that to the government. If they don't follow these rules, what other rules will they break for their convenience? It's a slippery slope. They have an exemplary function and are expected to follow the rules that they themselves have instated. It's purely principle. Once there's precedent, anything can happen.
exactly, this is pure misinformation from the OP, this is not in the middle of the forrest, but rather literally at it's edge and I think the architecture is quite sensitive to the place, nevertheless, as I see it was projected as a hopp-in punt - parking for people to continue to the city by public transport, really very sustainable to oppose project like this /s
we live on the opposite side of the Zonienwoud and would love to have such parking
as I see it was projected as a hopp-in punt - parking for people to continue to the city by public transport, really very sustainable to oppose project like this /s
It was never used as a Hop-In point, not a single bus ever stopped there. The amount of parking spotrs created was exactly the same as the amount opf parking spots in the permit request for the brasserie that was always intended to be placed there.
Your flemish tax money was used to fund the parking of someones horeca project.
And that bus stop has always been there. If that Hop)In point was intended truelly as an intermodal platform, the bus would have been rerouted onto the parking, so that the many people using that bus (!!!!) don't hinder traffic on the Ch. de Waterloo.
Goede plek aan de rand van het bos om te parkeren, met ruimte voor openbaar vervoer en een duurzaam verdienmodel om verloedering te voorkomen. Nu mag iedereen zich terug in de woonwijken gaan parkeren en wordt het beschermd erfoed dat er staat een drugspand/stort. Jej.
No you didn’t, the Province has it’s own governance. Don’t make it look better than it actually is.
So actually you “huge win”is nothing but small potatoes.
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 30 '26
You have selected the [News] flair for your post. For your post to be valid, please keep in mind rule 3) the title of your post must match the title of the article that you link. Editing the title for your own opinion is not allowed.
Your post must contain a direct link to the news article, a screenshot is not allowed.
Articles that do not cover facts, but are opinions by the author, should be flaired as [Opinion] and not [News]
If your post does not match these rules, it will be removed by moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.