#35 How does the quota for Amsterdam conversion permits work?

How does the quota for Amsterdam conversion permits work?

On 2 July 2025, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ruled in a case concerning the explanation of the Amsterdam quota for conversion permits (202406062/1/A2). This statement is important for the Amsterdam real estate practice and therefore deserves discussion.

Case study

The building at Weteringstraat 28 in Amsterdam consists of two houses. In the upper one, there are five rented rooms. Upon request, the Board of B and W will grant a conversion permit for this purpose. Some local residents, who are bothered by renting out rooms in their street, file an appeal against this. They argue that the permit issued exceeds 'the pledge quota' for conversion permits in the street. The college disagrees and declares their objections unfounded. On appeal, however, the local residents are right by the Amsterdam District Court. Although the Board does not appeal, the permit holder does. During that appeal, the permit holder takes over the position of the Board of Objections and Appeals. The Board, which, as a third party, still joins the appeal process, supports the permit holder.

The pledge quota for conversion permits: what is it?

In this case, the Amsterdam Housing Ordinance of 2020 (Hvv 2020) still applies. Article 3.3.11, paragraph 1, of the Hvv 2020 states that B and W must set a quota for conversion permits per district. The second paragraph of article 3.3.11 states:

In addition to paragraph 1, a maximum of 25 percent of the number of homes, in a building, or in a row of contiguous single-family homes, can consist of converted living spaces. Where does:

1. with at least four independent living spaces per floor, up to a maximum of 25 percent of the total number of homes per floor can consist of converted living spaces;
2. with fewer than four independent living spaces per floor, up to a maximum of 25 percent of the total number of homes per building may consist of converted living spaces; and,
3. with fewer than four homes per building, there can be a maximum of one converted living space.

The views

The local residents take the view that their street consists of a row of contiguous single-family homes. Some of them have already been converted with a permit, so that the contested conversion permit for Weteringstraat 28-1 exceeds the pledge quota. The Amsterdam District Court agrees with them. According to the court, the quota condition should in fact be read in such a way that if a building forms part of a row of contiguous single-family homes, a maximum of 25 percent of the number of homes in that building and in the row of contiguous single-family homes can be converted.

The permit holder reads the provision in such a way that the city council has given the college a choice: it can choose to allow a maximum of 25% of the homes to be converted into a building or a maximum of 25% of the homes can be converted into a row of contiguous single-family homes. According to the permit holder, the college has opted for the first, so that the permit was rightly granted under article 3.3.11, paragraph 2, sub c. After all, no home had been converted into the building at the time of the grant.

At the hearing, the College agrees with that opinion. It also argues that Weteringstraat 28 is not part of a row of contiguous single-family homes, but that statement is set aside by the Department, because the College only took this position on appeal.

Section opinion

Although the Division admits to the permit holder that article 3.3.11, paragraph 2, could have been worded more clearly, it agrees with the court's explanation. She believes that the goal of the pledge quota — protecting the quality of life in the immediate living environment — would not be achieved if the college in a street only had to look at the individual buildings and not at a row of contiguous homes. In addition, the Department finds that textual logic also means that when determining the maximum, all converted homes must be taken into account, regardless of whether they are located in a building or in a row of contiguous houses.

Relevance to the current Housing Ordinance

The Hvv 2020 no longer exists and the Housing Ordinance 2024, version including July 1, 2025, is in force (Hvv 2024). Is the Department's ruling still relevant? Yes, that's it, because article 3.3.7, paragraph 2, of the Hvv 2024 reads as follows:

In addition to paragraph 1, a maximum of 25 percent of the number of homes, in a building, or in a row of contiguous single-family homes, can consist of converted living spaces.

This text is exactly the same as that in article 3.3.11, paragraph 2, of the Hvv 2020. In order to prevent further disputes about the interpretation of this provision, the Section's ruling is therefore decisive. However, the Amsterdam City Council would do well to edit this text in a subsequent regulation in such a way that it is not amenable to two interpretations.