124 apartments had been approved on Bederstrasse in Zurich-Enge. Three years and two months later there was no permit left, and before the Federal Supreme Court, court costs and a party compensation of CHF 4’000.— each fell due. The Federal Council names Einsprachen (objections raised in the permit procedure) and Rekurse (appeals to the cantonal appeals court) as price drivers on the rental housing market — it does not name a franc figure. We calculate one, as a model calculation, with every assumption laid open beside it.
What the Federal Council writes
According to the Federal Council, Einsprachen and Rekurse are increasingly prolonging building permit procedures, and the resulting cost increases are «passed on to rents through the tightening of supply». Both statements appear verbatim in the report «Schädigen administrierte Preise die Kaufkraft?» («Do administered prices harm purchasing power?») of 09.09.2026, in which the rental housing market is one of four case examples.
The report was drawn up in fulfilment of Postulate 24.3157. It does not quantify the costs — it names the mechanism.
The same report records two points that rarely come along in the news coverage. Supply-side regulations also pursue «economically sensible aims, such as limiting external effects». And in regions with strong demand, an upzoning without accompanying measures can even go hand in hand with higher rents, because building at higher density is often more expensive than new construction on open land. Anyone who treats the subject as a question of blame has not read the report to the end.
That appeals are perceived as an obstacle has also been surveyed: in a survey by the ARE (Federal Office for Spatial Development) and the BWO (Federal Housing Office), 61 percent name Rekurse and 60 percent name Einsprachen as a major obstacle to housing construction (435 responses; the study itself states that the results are «not representative, but meaningful»). Of the 230 affected respondents, 80 percent report a later occupancy date and 70 percent higher prices.
The case where this can be counted through
The Bausektion (building committee) of the City of Zurich approved a residential development with 124 apartments on 02.10.2018. In November 2018 three Rekurse were filed, the Baurekursgericht (cantonal court of appeal for building matters) decided on 10.05.2019, the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich revoked the building permit on 27.02.2020, and on 06.12.2021 the Federal Supreme Court dismissed the developer’s appeal.
The headline at the time was that the Federal Supreme Court had stopped the project. It was the Administrative Court that revoked the permit; the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that decision. The reason was noise: in 99 of the 124 apartments, at least one room exceeded the immission limit value at night — a share of around 80 percent.
The procedural duration of three years and two months is named by no court; it is our difference between two judgment dates. For comparison: an appeal procedure at the Baurekursgericht of the Canton of Zurich took an average of 4,3 months in 2025, and out of 799 incoming cases, 78 percent were settled within the six-month administrative deadline. That is one instance — the further ones come on top.
Three assumptions we have set
No cost figure has been published for the Bederstrasse project. These three values are therefore set, not documented:
🏗️ Anlagekosten (total investment costs) per apartment at the time of approval: CHF 800’000.—
📐 Land share of the investment costs: 35 percent
🧮 Planning costs: 8 percent of the construction sum
Documented, by contrast, are the input values from the statistics: construction prices for new apartment buildings rose by 15,7 percent from October 2020 to October 2024. The average mortgage interest rate stood at 1,31 percent on the reference date 30.06.2026, and the Referenzzinssatz (mortgage reference rate published by the BWO) at 1,25 percent since 02.09.2026. The average move-in rent for a 4-room apartment in the Canton of Zurich is CHF 2’270.— net per month — market-oriented apartments, excluding cooperative and municipal apartments.
The model calculation
Five steps, from the procedure to the rent:
-
Approved
124 apartments, building decision of the City of Zurich of 2 October 2018.
-
Three years and two months of proceedings
Three Rekurse (appeals), two courts. On 6 December 2021 there is no permit left.
-
What the time costs
Construction cost inflation of 12,3 percent on the construction share, plus interest on the tied-up capital: CHF 77'283.— per apartment.
-
The whole project
Times 124 apartments: CHF 9'583'051.—, that is around 9,6 million francs.
-
In the initial rent
Allocated to the net rent of a 4-room apartment: from CHF 2'270.— to between CHF 2'354.— and CHF 2'479.— per month.
A model calculation, not a measurement: the number of apartments and the procedural dates are documented, three assumptions are set. The origin of every value is on the sources page.
Two ends instead of a single figure, because how the additional amount is financed is unknown: at the lower end the pure financing costs, at the upper end the yield corridor under tenancy law. Nobody knows the middle, we included.
The 3,25 percent are our own addition of the Referenzzinssatz of 1,25 percent and the margin of 2 percentage points that the Federal Supreme Court permits where the Referenzzinssatz is 2 percent or lower (BGE 147 III 14). Strictly speaking, for a new building the relevant criterion is the cost-covering gross yield under Art. 269a lit. c OR (Swiss Code of Obligations), not the net yield. The corridor serves here as an order of magnitude, not as a legal entitlement.
On how to read this figure. What we calculate here is a model, not a case. What is permissible for a specific property depends on values we do not know — investment costs, financing, age of the building — and on the case law on permissible yield (Art. 269 ff. OR). To set an Anfangsmietzins (initial rent at the start of a tenancy), bring in the figures of your own property; we will work through it with you and obtain the legal assessment where it belongs: from a specialist in tenancy law.
Every value with its source is listed on the sources page. How the Referenzzinssatz affects existing tenancies is set out in our article on the rent increase.
What is changing — and what is not, for now
In the report «Verfahrensbeschleunigung im Raumplanungs- und Baurecht» («Accelerating procedures in spatial planning and construction law») of 02.04.2026, the Federal Council announced that it would examine restrictions on the right of private individuals to appeal and consider obliging the cantons to impose costs in the case of demonstrably abusive Einsprachen. DETEC is to draw up a consultation draft by the end of 2026.
Two points of context. First: examined and considered does not mean decided. Second, and this is the practically more important point for owners: the Confederation can regulate the right to appeal only as far as proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court are concerned. For cantonal appeal proceedings it remains a matter of recommendations — nothing changes for now on the path via the cantonal Baurekursgericht. And the report speaks of demonstrably abusive Einsprachen: the ordinary case is not covered by this.
Frequently asked questions
Who bears the costs of an Einsprache?
Before the Federal Supreme Court in the Bederstrasse case, the unsuccessful developer bore court costs and a party compensation of CHF 4’000.— each. Those are the visible costs. The invisible ones are the time and whatever becomes more expensive during that time — precisely the values our model calculation quantifies.
Does the Federal Council’s report change anything about the right of appeal?
Not for now. Anyone filing a Rekurs as a neighbour is not exploiting a loophole: Art. 89 BGG (Federal Supreme Court Act) grants this right to anyone who is particularly affected by the decision and has an interest worthy of protection, and Art. 111 BGG prohibits the cantons from drawing this circle more narrowly than the Confederation does.
What this means for your property
- Clarify conditions early: on a noise-exposed plot, according to the Federal Supreme Court, high importance must be attached to noise protection «from the outset, i.e. already when defining the framework conditions — for instance when tendering and conducting a project competition».
- Provide the record that measures were examined: this lies with the party applying for the building permit.
- Do not over-document: what is required, according to the lower court, is «not countless variant studies, but comprehensibly reasoned statements of which measures were examined, chosen or rejected».
- Have your own figures ready: investment costs, financing and schedule determine the amount — not the model.
Anyone who sets the assumptions differently will arrive at different figures; the calculation paths remain the same. Let us work it through on your property: request a quote. Property management without surprises. 💙
All figures and legal references in this article are disclosed and linked → Sources.
Do you own a property?
We manage it at a flat rate — transparent, predictable, no hidden costs.