Facts
The case concerns a residential building in the agricultural zone that was approved in 2012 for conversion as a zone-compliant residential building (retirement home as part of the agricultural business). However, the attic was later converted without approval, which was noticed by the authorities. The Building and Justice Department of the Canton of Solothurn then refused to grant a permit for the conversion work and ordered the building to be restored.
The appellants A. and B.C. requested the annulment of the contested judgment and the granting of the subsequent building permit for the attic conversion and the modifications to the residential building. They argued that active farmers could make use of Art. 24c of the Spatial Planning Act (RPG).
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It concluded that Art. 24c RPG does not apply to a pre-existing residential building in the agricultural zone where the existing farm manager's apartment or existing retirement home is used as such. The building was approved in 2012 as a zone-compliant residential building (retirement home as part of the agricultural business), and it continues to be used as a retirement home. Only the disputed attic conversion is intended to serve non-agricultural purposes.
The Federal Supreme Court stated that according to…