In today's article from the series "Tuesday Mornings for Construction Professionals," we highlight the latest material published by the General Office of Building Control (GUNB) in its series "Interesting Interpretations of GUNB." This time, it addresses a practical question: can a single-family home with agritourism elements be built on agricultural land where the local development plan (MPZP) permits only farm buildings?.
Invalidated building permit
The case concerned an application for a building permit for a building designated as residential and agritourism in an area for which the local spatial development plan (MPZP) only allowed for farm buildings. The design also included several rooms for rent as agritourism.
At first instance, the authority refused to approve the construction design and issue a building permit. The voivode subsequently overturned this decision and granted the investor the permit.
However, the Chief Inspector of Building Control ("GINB") intervened and declared the voivode's decision invalid. It found that the investment was inconsistent with the provisions of the Local Spatial Development Plan (MPZP) because it was not a farm development, but merely a sideline of agritourism, with no real connection to running a farm.
The name given by the investor is not enough
The Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw shared the GINB's position in its judgment of February 15, 2023, file reference VII SA/Wa 2112/22. The court emphasized that in areas where the local spatial development plan (MPZP) permits only farm development, any residential development cannot be implemented simply because the investor is a farmer or the property is agricultural in nature. Farm development is a special type of development. It should include a residential building along with farm or livestock facilities, forming a functionally connected whole within a single habitation and serving the purpose of running a farm. The agricultural function cannot be merely an adjunct.
The court recalled that the nature of a project cannot be determined by the name chosen by the investor. The actual purpose of the facility and its intended use, as defined in the construction design, are crucial. Therefore, the administrative body cannot rely solely on the investor's declarations, but must also thoroughly assess the function of the proposed facilities.
In this case, the court found that the proposed buildings lacked the characteristics of a farmstead. They lacked any real connection to running a farm or the characteristics of a single, cohesive habitat. However, the documentation indicated that the buildings were primarily residential in nature, and the agritourism function indicated in the design was only incidental.
The Supreme Administrative Court, in its judgment of 17 December 2025, file reference II OSK 1459/23, dismissed the cassation appeal.
Summary: Farm development cannot be considered a way to implement standard single-family housing where the local spatial development plan prohibits it. The mere addition of agritourism elements also does not change the investment's qualification if it has no real connection to agricultural activity.
This is a clear warning sign for investors. Before commencing the project, it is essential to thoroughly verify whether the proposed development actually meets the intended purpose in the plan. Simply changing the project description is not sufficient if the construction design provides otherwise.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of April 13, 2026.
Author:
Series editor:
