The city of Ghent in counter-attack and degradation of pool: outdoor zone of the Rozebroeken is, however, legally built

Gent, As to be expected, the city of Ghent in appeal against the ‘Rozebroekenvonnis’. “We have many reasons to believe that the BPA (Special building Plan), however, is lawful, and that the Rozebroeken do to be legal is built,” says sportschepen Sofie Bracke. “This is separate from consultation with the complainant.” For the time being, the outdoor zone is closed.

The college of mayor and aldermen has therefore today decided to appeal. That does not happen immediately, but will first be thoroughly prepared. “We are convinced that the judgment that this court has reached, itself is questionable,” says sportschepen Sofie Bracke. “There are more than enough reasons to believe that the BPA does is lawful, and that the Rozebroeken there, so is correctly built. We are going to appeal in order to prevent the complainant or others on this judgment may rely in the future.”

The appeal is separate from the ongoing dialogue with the complainant. “Between the lawyers and operator of S&R and the complainant is negotiated,” says Bracke. “And we want to continue to do so. We opt for dialogue. We have a man in a proposal sent – the content of which is confidential – and have asked for time at the end of this month to get a response. For as long continues to be the outdoors area of the pool already close. I would like to point out that S&R there can choose on its own, for that closure, the situation is not on the striker to float. Officially may the grounds open as normal, as long as the judgment is not served. And that the complainant is still not done. We hope that it stays that way.”

outdoors area remains close

Once the verdict, however, means, it will start the time limit of six months within which the outdoors area according to the verdict should be aborted. Also, periodic penalty payments imposed for each day that the buienzone, however, be open. “That we appeal, and it changes nothing to the fact that the judgment is not served,” says Bracke. “This begins a period of six months not to walk. The profession that we annotate is also not suspending. That is to say that it is not is because we have the judgment, be disputed, that it would not apply. This remains so until there is a ruling in the appeal. How long we must wait, we don't know.”

for the time being it is there so that the outdoors area during the coming summer, is closed. Only if the complainant would accept the proposal from S&R, should change. What that proposal is, is not known. For example, it could go to building a noise-barrier fencing between the playground and the house of the complainant. For the time being for a possible reopening of the outdoors area at least wait until may, as the complainant had replied to the proposal of " Team Rozebroeken’.