Facts
The respondents, co-owners of plot No. ddd (1,270 m2) located in the residential zone R30 in Savièse (locality of Pradubuis), applied for authorisation to build a villa on this plot. The appellant, owner of the neighbouring plot No. eee, filed an objection.
By publication of 27 January 2017, the Savièse Communal Council established reserved zones over residential building zones, in order to allow the adaptation of zoning plans to the requirements of the new SPA. According to sector sheet DR1, the Pradubuis sector, with its fragmented plot layout, was to be put on hold pending future development that could take the form of a land reallocation (planning before rezoning: structuring plan and land consolidation).
By decision of 4 October 2017, the Communal Council authorised the villa and lifted the objection, requiring the constitution of a non-building and right-of-way easement. By notarised deed of 20 December 2017, the respondents and the commune constituted a right-of-way easement burdening plot No. ddd, intended for the future access road of sector DR1.
The Valais Council of State dismissed the appellant's appeal on 20 July 2018, and the Public Law Chamber of the Valais Cantonal Court confirmed that dismissal on 15 March 2019. The appellant brought the matter before the Federal Supreme Court, seeking annulment of the judgment and of the building permit, and suspensive effect was granted.
The disputed question was whether the building permit could be issued while the villa was located in a reserved zone, and whether the project infringed property rights and Art. 22 para. 2 SPA. The existence of the reserved zone itself was not contested.
Considerations
The appeal is admissible: the appellant, a directly adjoining neighbour, has standing under Art. 89 para. 1 SCA, and the other admissibility requirements are met. New exhibits not resulting from the contested judgment are inadmissible (Art. 99 para. 1 SCA).
A reserved zone (Art. 27 SPA and Art. 19 LcAT) aims to guarantee freedom of planning: nothing must be undertaken that could hinder the establishment of the zoning plan. Its adoption constitutes a restriction on property, admissible only if it rests on a legal basis, serves a public interest and respects proportionality (Art. 26 Cst., Art. 36 Cst.). The absence of a threat to planning must be assessed restrictively, and any negative precedent must be avoided.
In this case, the aims of the Pradubuis reserved zone, as announced by the commune and as shown in the publication and sheet DR1, include a future land consolidation. It is logical that plot boundaries be determined before the planning of access routes, so that the compatibility of the project with the land consolidation must be examined first.
The Federal Supreme Court corrects the statement of facts ex officio (Art. 105 para. 2 SCA): the north-western part of plot No. ddd, where the villa is supposed to be built, lies at the heart of the reserved zone, contrary to what the prior authority found. The latter therefore wrongly held that this part was not affected by the future land consolidation.
The commune argued for a wide margin of discretion in the land consolidation procedure, but the dispute concerns compliance beforehand with…