Which Copenhagen projects could face the new 25% rule?

See what went wrong for property buyers in Copenhagen

What is Copenhagen’s new 25% owner-occupied housing rule?

Copenhagen cannot impose the 25% owner-occupied housing rule yet, but the city is already preparing to use it on future local plans once Parliament gives municipalities the power.

The national proposal currently in consultation would allow municipalities to require that up to 25% of housing in new residential areas is owner-occupied. The requirement would be written into local plans, much like Copenhagen can already require a share of social housing.

That “up to 25%” wording is important. Copenhagen would gain a planning tool, not a blanket rule forcing every new building to contain exactly 25% owner-occupied homes. The city would decide where to use it and how hard to push.

Copenhagen’s political intention is already pretty clear. The City Council instructed the administration earlier this year to prepare for incorporating the new power into local plans as soon as the legislation takes effect. The proposal passed without a vote against it.

As of now, the national law is still at the consultation stage. The Plan and Rural Districts Agency published the draft recently, with the consultation running into late September. So no Copenhagen project is legally bound by the new requirement today.

What we know now	Current position	What it means for projects	Confidence
National law	Still proposed	25% ownership cannot yet be imposed	Very high
Maximum owner-occupied share	Up to 25%	Copenhagen can choose a lower requirement	Very high
Mechanism	Written into local plans	Planning timing becomes crucial	Very high
Copenhagen’s intention	Preparing to use it quickly	Future residential plans face real exposure	High

Why is it so hard to tell which Copenhagen projects will face the 25% rule?

The difficult part is identifying which projects will still need new local plans once Copenhagen gets the new power.

A development can be years away from completion and still be relatively safe because its local plan has already been adopted. Another project that has barely reached the drawing board may be far more exposed because Copenhagen still controls the planning rights needed to build it.

That difference changes the whole project ranking.

Svanemølleholm East is a good example. Tens of thousands of square metres of housing still have to be developed, but Copenhagen adopted the local plan last year. Kløverparken sits at the opposite extreme: landowners are preparing an architectural competition for a structure and masterplan, and detailed local planning comes afterward.

Construction schedules therefore tell us surprisingly little. The useful question is how far each development has moved through Copenhagen’s planning system.

Can Copenhagen put the 25% rule into projects that already have a local plan?

Projects with a final local plan should be hard to pull into the new 25% owner-occupation regime unless they later ask Copenhagen for substantial planning changes.

The proposed national mechanism works through local plans. Once a local plan has created the building rights for a residential development, Copenhagen cannot casually rewrite the tenure conditions just because a new political tool becomes available later.

That gives projects such as Svanemølleholm East a much stronger position. Copenhagen finally adopted its local plan after public consultation and political approval last year, allowing up to roughly 38,000 square metres of housing.

The caveat is redevelopment. Large Copenhagen projects often return to City Hall when developers want more floor area, different building volumes, new uses or another major change. If a supposedly protected project requires a fresh local plan later, the owner-occupation rule could come back into play.

So grandfathering is strong protection. It is not permanent immunity from every possible redesign.

Is Kløverparken the Copenhagen project most exposed to the 25% rule?

Kløverparken is currently one of the clearest candidates for an early and large-scale application of Copenhagen’s new 25% owner-occupied housing rule.

The timing is awkward for developers. Kløverparken and neighbouring Quintus are still at the structure-and-masterplan stage. By & Havn, Skanska, Kløvermarken A/S and Øens Invest have prepared an architectural competition, with five teams due to develop proposals for the future district. Detailed municipality and local planning comes after the competition.

The scale is enormous. The government-Copenhagen agreement on the eastern harbour allows around 870,000 square metres of housing, commercial space and parking across Kløverparken and Quintus. The first development phase is supposed to create planning capacity for about 530,000 square metres before the planned Kløverparken metro station opens.

In other words, Copenhagen has not yet given away most of its planning leverage.

There is also a fresh procedural clue. Copenhagen’s Climate, Environment and Technical Committee is due shortly to discuss the competition programme specifically so political wishes can influence the next stage. That discussion comes while the national 25% legislation is still moving through consultation. The timing is almost too neat.

We would put Kløverparken in the highest-risk category.

Project	Position today	Local planning still ahead?	25% exposure
Kløverparken & Quintus	Masterplan competition starting	Yes	Very high
Refshaleøen	Structure/masterplan work	Yes	Very high
Svanemølleholm East	Final local plan adopted	Usually no	Low
Langelinie Nord	Local-plan proposal in public process	Yes, but advanced	Medium

Could Refshaleøen face the 25% owner-occupied rule too?

Refshaleøen looks highly exposed because Copenhagen is still shaping the district long before detailed residential planning has been locked.

The project moved forward this year when five architecture teams delivered competing structure and masterplan ideas. Refshaleøens Ejendomsselskab then chose to continue working with concepts from COBE and Vandkunsten.

That sounds advanced. Legally, it is still early. Copenhagen needs a planning framework capable of turning the industrial and cultural area into a permanent mixed-use neighbourhood, followed by detailed local plans governing actual development.

Refshaleøen also forms part of the broader Østhavnen expansion with Kløverparken and Lynetteholm. Copenhagen expects these areas eventually to accommodate tens of thousands of additional residents, so the city has every reason to decide the housing mix before enormous amounts of new floor area are released.

If the owner-occupation legislation takes effect broadly as proposed, it would be surprising if Refshaleøen went through its entire future planning process without Copenhagen using the new tool somewhere.

Will Lynetteholm almost certainly face Copenhagen’s 25% rule?

Lynetteholm is the strongest long-term candidate for a 25% owner-occupied requirement because practically all of its future housing still lies ahead of detailed local planning.

The future district is expected to provide room for almost 50,000 residents. Copenhagen also says that 25% of Lynetteholm’s homes are intended to be social housing, reflecting the city’s existing planning powers and the infrastructure agreement behind the project.

Add the proposed owner-occupation power and the tenure mix gets unusually interesting.

If Copenhagen eventually required the maximum 25% owner-occupied share while keeping the planned 25% social-housing share, half of the housing could effectively be allocated between those two categories. The remaining half could then contain private rental housing, additional owner-occupied homes or other permitted tenures.

We should not assume Copenhagen will mechanically impose both maximums on every parcel. But Lynetteholm is exactly the kind of giant new district the legislation was designed to influence: huge future housing capacity, almost no detailed residential planning locked in, and direct municipal involvement from the beginning.

Hypothetical 1,000 Lynetteholm homes	Homes	Share	Status
Social housing	250	25%	Already expected
Owner-occupied housing	Up to 250	Up to 25%	Possible under new law
Other housing	At least 500	At least 50%	Depends on future plans
Total	1,000	100%	Illustrative only

Could the 25% rule reshape the whole Østhavnen development?

Yes. Østhavnen is where Copenhagen’s new owner-occupation tool could have its biggest long-term impact because so much of the future city there still lacks detailed planning rights.

Lynetteholm, Refshaleøen and Kløverparken are all unusually large. Copenhagen says Lynetteholm alone could eventually accommodate close to 50,000 residents, while Refshaleøen and Kløverparken together could add roughly another 30,000.

Those numbers put the debate in perspective. A 25% tenure requirement applied across even part of that future housing stock would involve thousands of homes, not a handful of units in one development.

The timing strengthens the case. Kløverparken is entering its masterplan competition, Refshaleøen is refining competing masterplan concepts, and Lynetteholm remains much further from detailed residential planning. Copenhagen is gaining a new housing-tenure tool while all three still require major planning decisions.

This is probably where the rule will matter most. Its effect on apartments completing around Copenhagen today should be modest compared with what it could eventually do to Østhavnen.

Could Jernbanebyen still get caught by the 25% rule?

Jernbanebyen remains a genuine borderline case because its local plan is far more advanced than Kløverparken’s, but it has not yet reached the certainty of projects with a final adopted plan.

Copenhagen has spent years working through Jernbanebyen’s planning, environmental assessment, public involvement and infrastructure arrangements. The revised local-plan proposal is now returning to the political process after consultation.

An important new detail is that Copenhagen’s Climate, Environment and Technical Committee is due to consider the revised Jernbanebyen proposal shortly. That puts the project unusually close to the legislative transition: national consultation on the owner-occupation law is happening while Copenhagen is trying to finish the project’s local-plan process.

We would still put Jernbanebyen below Kløverparken, Refshaleøen and Lynetteholm on the risk list. Reworking the tenure assumptions of such an advanced project would be far more disruptive than introducing the requirement while a masterplan is still being designed.

But Jernbanebyen is worth watching for one simple reason: its planning process has not fully crossed the finish line.

Could Langelinie Nord be forced to include owner-occupied apartments?

Langelinie Nord could theoretically face the new rule, but today it looks more like a transition case than a likely flagship application.

The proposed Langelinie development contains around 230 family homes. Copenhagen has already built a 25% social-housing requirement into the plan, which means roughly 58 homes are intended to be social housing.

The local-plan proposal is well advanced. Copenhagen approved sending it into an eight-week public consultation earlier this summer, and local political bodies have recently been considering their consultation responses.

That puts Langelinie considerably further ahead than Kløverparken or Refshaleøen.

If Copenhagen did eventually layer a maximum 25% owner-occupied requirement onto the existing 25% social share, around 58 additional homes could theoretically have to be owner-occupied. Half of the project would then remain available for the other permitted housing models.

We would treat that calculation as a measure of potential exposure, not a prediction. The closer Langelinie gets to final adoption before the new legislation becomes usable, the weaker the case for reopening its tenure structure.

Langelinie Nord	Approximate homes	Share
Total family homes	230	100%
Planned social housing	~58	25%
Maximum theoretical owner-occupied requirement	~58	25%
Housing left outside those two quotas	~115	50%

Which Nordhavn projects could actually face the 25% rule?

The later Nordhavn phases are much more exposed than Sundmolen and Svanemølleholm East, with Levantkaj currently sitting closest to the dividing line.

Svanemølleholm East is relatively straightforward. Copenhagen adopted its local plan last year, including roughly 38,000 square metres of housing. That planning decision came before municipalities received any power to require owner occupation.

Sundmolen is also well advanced under an existing planning framework. By & Havn has been moving forward with the final residential phase and marketing development plots, so the project has already passed the stage where Copenhagen would normally write a completely new tenure regime into the area.

Levantkaj is different. Development there is moving through several phases, and later parts still need detailed planning. The answer can therefore change from one parcel to another. An early Levantkaj local plan approved before the legislation becomes usable could escape, while a later phase planned afterward could face a 25% requirement.

Outer Nordhavn gives a good preview of how uneven the transition may look. Buildings only a few hundred metres apart could end up under different tenure rules because their local plans were adopted in different periods.

Nordhavn area	Planning maturity	Likely exposure now
Århusgadekvarter	Largely built	Very low
Sundmolen	Existing planning framework	Low
Svanemølleholm East	Final local plan adopted	Low
Levantkaj	Phased planning	Medium to high
Later outer-Nordhavn areas	Future detailed planning	High

Will developers rush to get Copenhagen projects approved before the 25% rule starts?

Developers with mature projects now have a real reason to push local planning forward, although merely filing plans early will probably offer little protection by itself.

The useful milestone is obtaining a sufficiently settled planning framework. An architectural concept, preliminary dialogue with Copenhagen or an application sitting in the municipal system does not give a developer the same certainty as a final local plan.

That puts the strongest incentive on projects already close to approval. Langelinie Nord and Jernbanebyen have much more realistic chances of moving through the system before the new rule becomes operational than Kløverparken or Refshaleøen.

Kløverparken cannot realistically race through the process. Its architectural competition is only starting, after which a structure and masterplan still have to feed into municipal and local planning. Refshaleøen has an even longer planning journey ahead.

The likely outcome is a transition period rather than one clean cut-off across Copenhagen. Some advanced projects could make it through under the old framework while later phases next door are planned under the new one.

Will Copenhagen’s 25% rule mainly hurt build-to-rent projects?

Yes. Build-to-rent projects face the biggest commercial adjustment because the new Copenhagen rule is specifically designed to reduce the dominance of private rental housing in new construction.

Copenhagen politicians have been unusually explicit about the problem they want to solve. When the City Council backed rapid implementation, supporters pointed to the large amount of private rental housing built during the past decade and argued that Copenhagen needs more owner-occupied homes.

The national case for the reform says much the same thing. Owner-occupied housing accounted for only around 15% of new housing production in Copenhagen and Aarhus in 2022, after falling substantially from earlier levels.

For a developer already planning to sell 30% of a project as individual apartments, a 25% requirement may change very little. An institutional investor expecting to own and rent an entire apartment building has a much bigger problem: part of the scheme may have to be legally structured and marketed for individual ownership.

This makes the intended business model as important as the project address. Two neighbouring developments can face the same planning requirement and feel completely different financial pain.

Could Copenhagen require 25% owner-occupied housing and 25% social housing in the same project?

Yes, the two requirements could potentially coexist, and that could become one of the biggest changes to the economics of large Copenhagen developments.

Copenhagen already has the power to demand up to 25% social housing when new local plans create residential development. The proposed national reform creates a separate ability to reserve up to 25% for owner occupation.

There is no evidence today that Copenhagen intends to force the maximum of both categories into every eligible development. The city already varies its social-housing requirement according to local conditions, and the owner-occupation proposal itself says “up to” 25%.

Still, some large districts clearly could face both.

Lynetteholm already comes with a political expectation of 25% social housing. Kløverparken and future parts of Refshaleøen will also be planned with housing diversity high on Copenhagen’s agenda. If those areas receive substantial owner-occupation requirements as well, the amount of housing left entirely to a developer’s preferred tenure model could shrink considerably.

That is where the rule starts changing how entire districts are assembled, rather than just nudging the housing mix.

Could the 25% rule make Copenhagen projects harder to finance?

Some projects will become harder to structure financially, especially developments originally designed as single-owner rental investments.

A pension fund or institutional landlord can buy, finance and operate an entire apartment property as one asset. Requiring part of the same development to become individually owned apartments introduces a different sales process, legal structure and cash-flow profile.

Copenhagen politicians themselves have acknowledged this tension. When the City Council backed preparations for the rule, Liberal Alliance supported the decision while warning that implementation should remain flexible enough to avoid making new development unnecessarily difficult.

That concern is reasonable, but owner occupation does not automatically destroy project economics. Copenhagen has a deep market for apartments, and individual unit sales can return capital earlier than holding a rental building for decades. A developer comfortable with presales might even prefer part of that structure.

The biggest disruption should fall on projects whose land price, financing and expected return were all calculated around keeping virtually every apartment as private rental housing.

Could Copenhagen’s 25% owner-occupied rule slow housing construction?

The 25% rule could delay marginal Copenhagen projects, but the huge eastern-harbour developments are unlikely to disappear because of it.

Kløverparken, Refshaleøen and Lynetteholm involve land and infrastructure commitments far too large to abandon simply because Copenhagen changes the housing mix. Developers are more likely to renegotiate economics, phase development differently or redesign individual parcels.

Smaller projects have less room. A difficult infill scheme already dealing with expensive construction, remediation, infrastructure obligations and a social-housing requirement could become less attractive if another portion of its apartments has to follow a prescribed tenure.

Copenhagen cannot ignore that risk. The city needs a very large housing pipeline, so a policy intended to create more owner-occupied homes becomes counterproductive if it suppresses enough construction to worsen overall scarcity.

The flexibility built into the national proposal helps. Copenhagen would be allowed to demand up to 25%, leaving room to use the maximum in large strategic districts and a lighter requirement where project economics are fragile.

Will every small Copenhagen housing project face the 25% rule?

Probably not. The new owner-occupation power makes much more sense as a tool for shaping substantial new residential areas than as an automatic 25% quota on every small apartment development.

Copenhagen already uses its social-housing powers selectively. In Valby, for example, the city has considered allowing owner-occupied and cooperative homes inside existing social-housing estates without applying the normal social-housing quota because adding yet more of the dominant tenure would work against the goal of a mixed neighbourhood.

The same logic can apply to owner occupation.

A small project in an area already dominated by owner-occupied apartments gives Copenhagen less reason to force another 25% ownership share. A major new waterfront neighbourhood heavily weighted toward private rental housing gives the city a much stronger case.

We therefore expect geography, existing housing mix and project scale to influence implementation rather than one identical formula being stamped onto every Copenhagen planning application.

Which Copenhagen projects look safest from the new 25% rule?

Svanemølleholm East, Sundmolen and other developments with settled local plans look considerably safer than Copenhagen’s next generation of harbour projects.

Svanemølleholm East has the clearest evidence. Its final local plan was adopted last year after public consultation, allowing approximately 38,000 square metres of housing. The city even settled the project’s social-housing share during that process, ultimately retaining a 40% requirement.

Sundmolen is also moving forward under an established planning framework while By & Havn brings new residential plots to market. Mature parts of Ørestad, Carlsbergbyen, Enghave Brygge, Sluseholmen and the older Nordhavn districts are further removed from the new rule because their fundamental planning rights were created long ago.

There will still be exceptions. If a developer comes back asking for much greater density or another major change that needs a new local plan, Copenhagen gets another opportunity to negotiate planning conditions.

But as things stand today, already planned districts should not be where developers are most worried.

So which Copenhagen projects are most likely to face the new 25% rule?

Kløverparken, Refshaleøen, Lynetteholm and later parts of Levantkaj and outer Nordhavn are the projects we would put at the top of the 25% owner-occupation watchlist today.

Their common feature is simple: Copenhagen still has substantial planning decisions left to make.

Kløverparken is particularly exposed because its 870,000-square-metre programme is only entering the masterplan competition, with local planning coming later. Refshaleøen has chosen concepts to develop further but remains far from detailed residential planning. Lynetteholm sits even further into the future and will eventually contain housing for close to 50,000 people.

Jernbanebyen and Langelinie Nord form the interesting middle group. Both still have unfinished planning procedures, yet both are far enough along that forcing a brand-new tenure requirement into the process would be much more disruptive. Their exposure is real but clearly lower.

Svanemølleholm East and Sundmolen sit on the safer side. Their planning frameworks are already established, even though construction and development continue.

The distinction gives us a much clearer answer than simply looking at which cranes are active around Copenhagen. The projects most likely to face the 25% rule are the large neighbourhoods whose housing rights still have to pass through City Hall.

And the potential scale is substantial. If Copenhagen eventually combines a 25% owner-occupation requirement with existing social-housing requirements in selected new districts, as much as half of the residential mix could be determined before developers choose what to do with the remainder.

That would make the new rule far more consequential for Copenhagen in the 2030s than for the apartment buildings opening around the city today.

Project / area	Current position	Likelihood of facing 25% ownership rule	Our read
Lynetteholm	Detailed residential planning far ahead	Very high	Strongest long-term candidate
Kløverparken & Quintus	Masterplan competition starting	Very high	Likely early major test
Refshaleøen	Masterplan being refined	Very high	Planning leverage remains strong
Later Levantkaj / outer Nordhavn	Future phased planning	High	Later parcels especially exposed
Jernbanebyen	Advanced local-plan process	Medium	Timing could decide it
Langelinie Nord	Public local-plan process	Medium-low	Increasingly difficult to reopen
Sundmolen	Existing planning framework	Low	Probably outside the new regime
Svanemølleholm East	Final local plan adopted	Very low	Strongest grandfathered case

Who is the author of this content?

INVESTROPA

A team researching how property purchases actually go wrong across Europe

We are a team of real estate researchers and local specialists focused on helping people avoid expensive mistakes when buying property abroad, particularly in Copenhagen. If you’d like to learn more about us, you can check our presentation page.