Are easements being ignored by the future neighbor?

The communist in you would probably have transferred the property to the city to create affordable housing for the public?

Yes, but then he would have lost out to the capitalist in me.

Immorality

... I consider that very unlikely, however, I also find it hard to believe in sloppy planning, so the opposing party must have some justification at hand, and that would IMHO be one possible strategy.

We were fundamentally not involved in the approval process and were only informed of the approval letter two days ago.

Strange – but I am not familiar with the customs in Bavaria. Here you wouldn’t have received any information at all.
With the amendment of the BayBO in February of this year, Art. 66 Neighbor Participation was also changed. In the implementation notes it states:
... By deleting the previous sentences 2 to 5 of Art. 66 para. 1, the legislator makes it clear that neighbor participation is entirely in the hands of the builder and the designer appointed by him. ...
Only a building application that has carried out the required neighbor participation according to the legal requirements is fully valid and usable within the meaning of Art. 51 para. 1 sentence 2. ...
Whether, conversely, a building application is unusable due to improper neighbor participation must be clarified by your lawyer.

My architect said when we built our house back then, that while it would be advantageous if all neighbors sign, it would also work without their signatures, the approval procedure would just take longer.

Yes, sure, it can’t be that a neighbor who plays dead prevents construction, but equally it can’t be that a builder who doesn’t want to talk to the neighbors simply claims to have reached no one. But as I said, I’m not very familiar with the everyday practice in Bavaria.

Thanks for the hint about the formal error, what would the consequence be?

If there actually were a formal error, the building permit would IMHO be void.

What does the communist say about this?

Scandal! No power for nobody! Expropriate large landowners!
Good that we live in a social market economy and that no party has an absolute majority in the federal or state governments anymore.

if the buyer is an investor whose sole interest is his profit maximization.

It seems you have entered a shark tank, so let’s see if the cage you built holds up.
Keep me posted on how it continues.

I assume that it was the architect's task to check the local conditions BEFORE the start of planning, and for me that also includes checking any possible easements.

However, he does not need to obtain a sworn affidavit from his client that the client is not willfully withholding anything from him. Where people act, mistakes happen – even if these people are capitalists, it does not have to be intentional. My remaining hope that this is not malicious is at least not yet destroyed ;-) I would certainly give the opponent ONE (singular!!!) chance for a peaceful withdrawal. And no matter how much of a key participant the architect is from a formal legal standpoint: notifying at least one more person from the entire "gang" of a proven legal violation does no harm.

Yes, but then he would have come off worse against the capitalist in me.

:D

... I consider that very unlikely, however, I also find it hard to believe in sloppy planning, so the other party must have some justification in hand and that would be, IMHO, a possible strategy.

I'm not a lawyer and my own morals and values are the basis on which I interpret such things. Therefore, I can't fully understand it either. An easement for pedestrian/vehicle/utility rights is quite ordinary at first and I see no grounds here for immorality.
A bit more unusual, in my opinion, is the building prohibition on the first 3m of the property and the sole maintenance obligation of the buyer concerning the access road.

For me, the situation here is that the buyer agreed to the clause voluntarily.
No one forced him to buy the property.
Also, his freedom to develop the property is not so restricted that it would no longer be possible. It would probably just be less profitable for him. ;)
But having the right and getting the right are often two different things...
However, I am very grateful to you for the explanation; I will pass this on to my parents so they can bring it up with the lawyer.
If immorality were indeed involved, one should discuss the responsibility of the lawyer who drafted the contract.
But we are nowhere near that yet.

Sure, it can’t be that a neighbor who plays dead prevents the construction, but equally it can’t be that a builder who doesn’t want to talk to the neighbors simply claims he couldn’t reach anyone. But as I said, I’m not sufficiently familiar with everyday practice in Bavaria.

If there really were a formal error, the building permit would be null and void, IMHO.

Regarding informing the neighbors, I’m quite relaxed. I wouldn’t have cared if one of our neighbors hadn’t signed off on our plans. As long as you comply with the regulations, I believe everyone should be allowed to build as they want and may.
Here, however, I’m glad we were informed, otherwise we probably would have been faced with a fait accompli.

Scandal! No power for no one! Expropriate large landowners!
Good thing we live in a social market economy and no party has an absolute majority in the federal government and the states.

:D

It seems you have entered a shark tank, so let’s see whether the cage you built holds.
Keep us posted on how it goes.

Yeah, exciting. I will definitely get in touch.

However, he doesn’t need to obtain an affidavit from his client that he is not withholding anything deceitfully. Where humans act, mistakes happen – even if these humans are capitalists, it doesn’t have to be deliberate. My last hope that this is not malice has not been destroyed yet ;-)
I would certainly give the opponent ONE (singular!!!) chance for a peaceful retreat. And no matter how much the architect is formally involved in this: letting one more person from the whole "gang" know about a proven legal violation at least doesn’t hurt.

Yes, perfectly clear. I also make mistakes in my job and allow others to do so as well.
That’s why personal contact with the buyer is sought here, even though we expected that from him as well after he said he would get in touch as soon as he had presentable plans...
But before that, the conversation with the lawyer will take place. In the shark tank – as aptly phrased by – we prefer not to swim alone, that usually ends badly.

At first, this was really an oversight, I just find it hard to believe. ;)
It’s not in our interest to go up in arms right away.

There are already enough neighbors of that kind in our street. They gathered like a pack in front of the property in spring when the buyer had a digger clearing it to get an overview of the topography. They showed up right away with the public order office and police and even informed the press... :rolleyes:
The main message from the poor neighborhood was that the even higher traffic volume couldn’t be tolerated on the street!
It is a dead-end street with single-family homes where about 2 cars per hour pass by. :D
I don’t want to participate in that and find it ridiculous. Anyone with normal reasoning should be aware that in the city there has to be some densification.

I would have had the one floor and flat roof registered in the land register as well. I hope the slope goes downward.

And why is that so reprehensible, as I understood it?

Because such maximal exploitation, as aptly demonstrated here, creates situations that lead to misinterpretations and would otherwise have been much clearer and more elegant – regardless of the architect's poor planning. Greed sometimes eats brains even here. ;)

Maximum exploitation [...] regardless of the architect's misplanning.

Filling plots with the maximum possible amount of square meters of sellable space is exactly what architects appreciated by investors are "trained" to do. They have internalized these thought patterns; it already runs for them like an automatic program. "Misplanning" is a socially critical interpretation.