Facts

Parties and procedural participants:

The appellants are

  • the estate of [A.A.] and the late [B.A.] , consisting of [C.A.] and [D.A.] (Appellant 1, Case 1C_588/2023),
  • [E. AG] (Appellant 2, Case 1C_593/2023),
  • [F.F.] (Appellant 3, Case 1C_602/2023).

The respondents are

  • the municipality of Rickenbach, represented by the municipal council,
  • the Government Council of the Canton of Lucerne, represented by the Department of Building, Environment and Economy (BUWD).

Facts of the case:

The municipality of Rickenbach comprises the localities of Rickenbach and Pfeffikon, which merged in 2013. The last comprehensive revision of the Rickenbach land-use plan was decided in 2011 and approved by the Government Council in 2012. The Pfeffikon settlement zoning plan dates from 1995 (approved in 1996).

In a letter dated 11 June 2018, the BUWD informed the municipality that it was considered a municipality subject to rezoning due to its excess development zone capacity. On 8 November 2018, the relevant criteria for rezoning were published. The municipality prepared a report and submitted a partial revision of the land-use plan for preliminary review in June 2020. The BUWD identified a calculated excess capacity of 18 ha, with the total rezoning area amounting to 2.98 ha.

At the municipal assembly on 27 September 2021, numerous objections were upheld and several plots remained in the development zone, while others (including parcels No. 100, 128, 173, 174 and 1072) were assigned to non-development zones. [F.F.] , owner of parcel No. 174, filed an appeal against this decision with the Government Council. The latter approved the partial zoning plan amendment on 28 June 2022 and ordered the rezoning of several plots to agricultural zones. [F.F.] ’s appeal was dismissed.

The appellants filed appeals against the Government Council’s decision with the Lucerne Cantonal Court, which dismissed the appeals on 26 September 2023. The appellants filed appeals against these judgments with the Federal Supreme Court between 2 and 9 November 2023.

Appellants’ submissions:

Appellant 1 (1C_588/2023): Annulment of the Government Council’s approval decision and the municipal assembly’s resolution of 27 September 2021. In the alternative, annulment of only the rezoning of parcel No. 373.

Appellant 2 (1C_593/2023): Annulment of the Cantonal Court’s judgment and referral back to the Cantonal Court or the Government Council.

Appellant 3 (1C_602/2023): Annulment of the Cantonal Court’s judgment and refusal to approve the partial revision of the land-use plan (with the exception of the designation of water spaces), combined with processing within the framework of the comprehensive revision.

Considerations

Admissibility of the appeals:

The appeals are admissible since the appellants, as owners of the rezoned plots, have a legitimate interest in the annulment of the contested decisions (Art. 89 para. 1 SPA). The appeals were filed within the statutory time limits (Art. 100 para. 1 SPA). Violations of federal law may be examined ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 SPA), whereas fundamental rights are only examined if specifically raised and substantiated (Art. 106 para. 2 SPA).

Cantonal rezoning strategy and its legal bases:

According to Art. 15 SPA, development zones must correspond to the anticipated demand for 15 years. Over-dimensioned development zones must be reduced (Art. 15 para. 2 SPA). The Canton of Lucerne has defined specific criteria for rezoning in the cantonal structure plan (KRP2015) and the rezoning strategy. The municipality of Rickenbach was classified as a rezoning municipality due to a calculated excess capacity of 18 ha. The rezoning areas, totalling just under 3 ha, were identified according to uniform criteria (e.g. undeveloped location, access, public transport connections, buildability).

Admissibility of the partial revision and coordination with the comprehensive revision:

The appellants argue that the rezonings were decided in an expedited partial revision despite an upcoming comprehensive revision of the land-use plan. The Federal Supreme Court holds that a partial revision is admissible provided it is spatially and thematically clearly delimited and does not prejudice the comprehensive revision. In the present case, the partial revision was limited to the rezoning of undeveloped, peripheral plots that met the cantonal criteria. No prejudice to the comprehensive revision is apparent, as the partial revision merely represents a first step in reducing the size of the development zones. The municipality has also provided reasonable grounds for the staged approach, in particular resistance to rezoning and the risk of delaying the comprehensive revision.

Consideration of extra-cantonal links and the principle of equal treatment:

The appellants claim that the extra-cantonal links of the locality of Pfeffikon to the Canton of Aargau were not taken into account. The Federal Supreme Court finds that the cantonal and municipal authorities did indeed recognise the proximity to the Aargau municipalities of Reinach and Menziken and considered settlement development appropriate only in the core area of Pfeffikon. This complies with the spatial planning concentration principle (Art. 3 para. 3 lit. a SPA).

The complaint of unlawful unequal treatment is also dismissed. The appellants cannot rely on a violation of the principle of equal treatment, as the rezoning criteria were applied in a non-arbitrary and objectively justified manner. The non-rezoning of…