A Permit Is Not a Silence Test

To the Red Tape Council,

I oppose the proposal that a permit should be granted when the authority misses a deadline. I support the other parts of RT-001: test the impact of new rules on small businesses, make the process easier to find, and publish realistic service times. But silence is not a safe substitute for a decision. In Ghent, I learned that even a short request to use a little pavement involves questions that cannot be answered by a clock alone.

A small request with a real deadline

On 5 February 2026, I submitted an online request to the City of Ghent for permission to occupy a short stretch of pavement beside my premises for two days, 12 and 13 March. A repair required a small work area and a temporary barrier. The request was limited in time and space. I included the dates and the arrangement I expected to use.

I booked a contractor for the March dates and paid a €250 deposit. The total cost of the planned work was €690. I did not regard the application itself as permission to put equipment on the pavement. Ghent has to consider how people can pass safely, including people using wheelchairs or pushing prams. That is a proper public responsibility, not a formality.

On 19 February, I received a request to revise the plan to show the pedestrian passage more clearly. I sent the revised plan the next day. I checked the online file and followed up through the municipal contact channel. I did not receive a decision before the contractor’s slot. The City granted the request on 16 March, after the dates I had applied for. I arranged a new slot for 30 March and paid another €185 to cover the contractor’s rescheduling and the additional visit.

I am not writing this to accuse an individual. The staff member handling a file may be waiting for information, managing a queue, or checking a safety issue. My point is simpler: the cost of delay fell on me, but that does not mean the answer should have been automatic approval.

What the rules already show

Belgium is not one permitting system. In Flanders, applications for environmental and planning permissions can be handled through the digital Omgevingsloket, and the relevant framework sets decision periods. Where the authority does not decide within the applicable period, the result is not a permission silently granted; it can be an implied refusal. My request in Ghent was a local public-pavement occupation request, not an application under that Flemish permit procedure. The distinction matters: different permissions protect different interests, and the rules for one kind should not be casually copied onto another.

The Ghent process did not give me the certainty I needed about when I could proceed. That is a case for a clearer service standard: tell the applicant what is missing, show the file’s status, publish the expected time, and make it easy to ask for an update. If the authority cannot decide by the stated date, it should explain the delay and give a new date. It should also let a small applicant challenge an unexplained wait without having to hire a lawyer.

But a missed service target should trigger accountability, not create a permit. If silence counts as consent, an applicant might reasonably believe that a barrier, scaffold, delivery area, or other occupation is lawful even though nobody has checked the conditions. Other people use that same pavement. They should not carry the risk of an administrative deadline missed by someone else.

The change I would support

I would support a one-stop digital process where one is practicable, published service times, and a small-business impact test for new rules. I would add a requirement to acknowledge an application, identify missing material promptly, and provide a reasoned status update when the expected decision date passes. For simple applications, authorities should publish a shorter target and report how often they meet it. For more

complicated applications, they should say what makes the file complicated rather than leave the applicant guessing.

Where an authority misses its deadline, there should be a clear route to an escalation or review. There can also be temporary practical help: for instance, a confirmed revised decision date, or permission to use an alternative arrangement that has been checked for safety. Those options keep pressure on the authority while respecting the public space and the people who depend on it.