In a recent legal case (CE 27 August 2026, Req. No. 505521), the Council of State, France's highest administrative court, addressed the application of two articles in the Urban Planning Code. These articles concern the requirements for a complete building permit application. A local resident, who lived near a planned construction site, asked the mayor to revoke a permit granted to a company for demolishing a house and garage and building a structure with 12 social housing units, a shop, and a medical center on a 422-square-meter plot. When her request was denied by the mayor, she took the case to the Administrative Court of Cergy-Pontoise, which also rejected her appeal. She then appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that the application file was incomplete and lacked a specific table required by the Urban Planning Code. The Council of State examined whether the lack of certain documents in the building permit application was enough to invalidate the permit. It clarified that incomplete or imprecise documents do not automatically make a permit illegal, unless they prevent the administrative authority from properly assessing whether the project complies with regulations. In this case, the application included a graphical representation of the project and its main façade from a nearby boulevard. The absence of details about buildings behind the new structure did not prevent the authorities from making an informed decision, according to the court. Another issue was whether the company was required to include a table showing the number of family rental housing units and the proportion designated for social housing. This requirement comes from Article R431-16-3 of the Urban Planning Code, which applies to collective buildings under Article L111-24. The Council of State noted that Article L111-24 mandates a share of social rental housing when a building has more than twelve housing units or when more than 800 square meters of floor area are used for residential purposes. However, the phrase "for a residential use" was interpreted based on a previous ruling (CE, 11 February 2025, Minister of the Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion v. Edelweiss Paradise Company, No. 491009). The court applied this interpretation to the current case. The project involved exactly twelve housing units and 787 square meters of residential floor area, which is below the required thresholds. Although the total floor area, including non-residential spaces like the shop and medical center, exceeded 800 square meters, the residential portion was under the limit. Therefore, the company was not required to include the table in question, and the permit was upheld.