Are pedestrian rights and driving rights available?

If Schrödinger visits himself on the way between parcels 1 and 3, then he may simultaneously use and not use the corridor over parcel 2 - for that, thanks on behalf of all philosophers for the interesting case; to develop parcel 3, in addition to its right of way over parcel 2, he also needs another GFL right from himself (since he could eventually sell his parcel 1).

FL1 does not need a right of way. It is on the public road. FL3 has a right of way. What exactly is your problem? Whether you are allowed to build there will be told to you by your architect or the building authority. Is there a development plan?

This is the amendment to the development plan which the municipal council has already unanimously approved.

Nevertheless, after the public display of the draft plan for the amendment of the development plan, it has become apparent that some owners who border directly or indirectly (e.g. FL 2) on FL 3 have a problem with the development, as their edge location is affected. The owner of FL 2 is trying to stop the procedure because he believes that FL 3 requires pedestrian and vehicular rights of way over his "partial plot" FL 2. The owner does not specify the exact reasons why he does not want the rights of way to be registered; the party also rejects any corresponding financial compensation for the registration.

Plot No. 3 is currently agricultural land, which is to be converted into building land.

For projects in the outdoor area, the development must be provided. Or has the agricultural use area already been included in the indoor area?

Then you probably have bad luck.

[*]Parcel No. 3 has rights of way for pedestrians and vehicles over parcel No. 1 and over a part of parcel No. 2.

Nonetheless, according to the interpretation of the draft plan for the amendment of the development plan, it has emerged that some owners, who border parcel 3 directly or indirectly (e.g., parcel 2), have a problem with the development because their edge location is affected. The owner of parcel 2 is trying to stop the procedure because he believes that parcel 3 needs rights of way for pedestrians and vehicles over his "part" of parcel 2. The owner does not specify the exact reasons why he does not want the rights of way to be registered, and the party also rejects appropriate financial compensation for the registration.

If I were the owner of No. 2, I would also not agree to a right of way. Why should I?