Facts

The Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE), A. and B. [C.] as well as [D.] filed an appeal against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Lucerne, which had approved the subsequent building permit application of [E. AG] for the expansion of a workshop on a property in the agricultural zone. The Federal Supreme Court consolidated the proceedings and upheld the appeals. It decided that the building permit application must be rejected, as the requirements for a permit under the relevant provisions of spatial planning law are not met: - The warehouse built on the property in 1972 was already materially unlawful at the time of its approval, as it was not site-specific and lacked the required consent of the competent cantonal authorities under the then applicable Water Protection Act. Therefore, it cannot be considered a lawfully constructed building within the meaning of Art. 37a of the Spatial Planning Act (SPA), for which expansions could be approved. - The storage yard established in 1972 was also materially unlawful due to the lack of site-specificity, even if it did not require a permit under the then applicable cantonal law. - The planned construction project, which aims to create a modern workshop with covered storage, parking spaces, a washing area, etc., does not constitute a permissible expansion within the meaning of Art. 37a SPA, but a qualitatively new use that exceeds the scope of a mere expansion. - Overriding spatial…