Facts

On 17 August 2010 the Laax Municipal Executive adopted the neighbourhood development plan 'Wohnüberbauung Lag-Pign' for a residential development to be realised in ten stages on parcel No. 147. The plan became legally binding on 18 September 2010.

On 4 November 2011 the voters adopted a comprehensive revision of the local planning, which contained a municipal second-homes act. The Government of the Canton of Graubünden approved the revision on 8 May 2012.

After completion of stages 1 to 5 and approval of stages 6 and 7, the building company B. submitted building applications for the multi-family houses G and F (stages 8 and 9). The building applications were published on 17 November 2017. The association Helvetia Nostra lodged an objection on 6 December 2017 on the grounds that the construction of new second homes was impermissible. The Municipal Executive dismissed the objection on 6 February 2018 and granted the building permits.

The Administrative Court of the Canton of Graubünden dismissed Helvetia Nostra's appeal on 12 February 2019, insofar as it was admissible. It based the permits on Art. 26 SHA, since the building permits were based on a project-related special-use plan oriented towards second homes.

Helvetia Nostra filed a public-law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court and requested the annulment of the judgment and of the building permits and the rejection of the building applications. The issue in dispute was whether the neighbourhood development plan met the requirements of Art. 26 para. 1 SHA, in particular whether it was oriented at least to a substantial extent towards the construction of second homes.

Considerations

Art. 75b para. 1 Cst. limits the second-home share of a municipality to a maximum of 20%. In Laax this limit is clearly exceeded, so in principle no second-home permits may be granted. An exception is only possible under Art. 26 SHA, which permits dwellings based on a project-related special-use plan that was legally approved before 11 March 2012 and is oriented at least to a substantial extent towards second homes. Art. 26 SHA largely corresponds to Art. 8 aZWV, but contains the additional requirement of second-home orientation.

The constitutionality of Art. 8 aZWV was already affirmed in earlier judgments, as the regulation is limited to very specific situations and respects the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. The complaint that the plan was not approved by the Government Council and lacks the character of land-use planning was not heard for lack of a substantiated reasoning (Art. 42 para. 2 FSCA). Equally unsubstantiated was the criticism of the finding that the plan regulates the essential elements of the building permit within the meaning of Art. 26 para. 1 lit. b SHA.

The disputed and examinable question was whether the plan is oriented at least to a substantial extent towards second homes. An explicit statement is not absolutely necessary; the purpose may follow from the circumstances. However, the plan must indicate with sufficient clarity that at least a substantial part is intended for second homes. The mere intention of the developer to build second homes, or the pursuit…