Building authority requires open space design plan for single-family house - experiences?

We have given our hedge 6m space front and back.

That's nice for you. Then we just don't have a garden anymore. So that's a bit easy to say.

In these cases, an approval check by the environmental office is always necessary.

I don't know it that way. Usually, that is requested by the authority from the office when preparing a development plan, not with the processing/approval of a building application.

I see it more from the side that since there are no specifications, the office wants to know what you intend to do.

Yes, I can understand that.

At most in simplified procedures, where the builder strictly adheres to the specifications of the development plan.

That's exactly what we are doing. We are in the simplified procedure and comply 100% with the development plan. And there is nothing like that stated.

Or are you only in your mid-30s? Why then the thought about your 80-year-old self?

Late 30s. But the 80 will come (hopefully), whether in 2 or 40 years doesn't matter. We are building the house to grow old there and to be able to grow old. We have considered that in every planning - from living on just one floor (e.g. “guest” bathroom, separate bedroom (now office, washing machine connection, etc.), through the access to the house (e.g. without stairs, wide doors, etc.) to the living possibility for caregivers or similar. It is not 100% care-appropriate, but better than age-appropriate.

According to the building official handling the case, our building plan could not have been approved without the OK from this nature conservation office (or whatever it is called depending on the federal state).

And was there anything regarding design in the development plan or did you deviate from it?

Yes, I can understand that.

Or not. Either I have special requirements, then I make the corresponding specifications, or I just let it be. I don’t just go to a car dealership and want a "car" and then have 20 vehicles shown to me. Instead, I go there and say: "I want a small car, electric, with xy kW, 4 seats, air conditioning, etc." And if there are already specifications in the development plan that do not apply to our property because no corresponding areas are marked here, then I just don’t understand that. Our architect now says that it’s not such a big deal, that we don’t have to be afraid, that it can’t be binding because submission is on a voluntary basis due to lack of foundation, and that no municipality would make a fuss even if the specifications are not followed. But if he is wrong, we have a mess – in the truest sense of the word. Unfortunately, he is quite stuck in his opinion and therefore does not see the need to reduce the 19 deciduous trees on the approximately 600 sqm or remove them next to the terrace, which lies in the gravel bed and surely also benefits from roots. I don’t want to find out how long it will stay that way. Maybe I will have to make such a plan myself – without the architect’s signature. I hope that won’t lead to inquiries either.

Our architect now says that it’s not such a big deal, that we don’t need to be afraid, that it can’t be binding because submission is on a voluntary basis due to lack of foundation, and that no municipality would make a fuss even if the requirements are not followed.
Only if he is wrong, do we have a mess – in the truest sense of the word.

Unfortunately, he is quite entrenched in this opinion and therefore does not see the need to reduce the 19 deciduous trees on the approximately 600 sqm or to remove the ones next to the terrace that lie in the gravel bed and surely also enjoy the roots. I don’t want to find out how long they will remain there.

I might have to make such a plan myself after all – without the architect’s signature. Hopefully that won’t lead to further inquiries.

The entire nonsense must be submitted by the authorized building planner; that’s why they are called that.

And did the development plan say anything about the design, or did you deviate from it?

For our plot, we were required to purchase an almost leftover section, but both had apparently once been laid out as independent plots in the development plan, each designated with its own required planting. Since the development area and plan were 20 years old, during the reactivation of the building area, completely different and more "contemporary" construction methods and projects were accepted, but the planting still applied from back then. So we had to plant two plots as if we had built on both, meaning double-row. However, we were not allowed to build on this rear part, so a row of trees was supposed to cut across our property. I don’t recall the exact wording and reasoning anymore, but it was totally off; in the end, we also wanted to build as soon as possible. We could have built all kinds of concrete fences totaling 80 meters in length with foundations, but a small wooden hut with a green roof would narrow the animal paths; two meters next to it, however, would not. We found this to be harassment and arbitrary and largely contradictory to ecological principles that we wanted to observe. The mold (horse) wouldn't stop neighing. The planner then somehow drew in the "forest," and of course, we planted quite a bit of it, in total probably double the required amount because we liked it, just arranged differently. Later, the house was examined (the "inspection" alone would be enough for a book chapter), the planting was only given cursory consideration, and the neighbors around were already scared because almost all of them had done nothing except the usual bar mesh fences and clear-cutting. Strictly speaking, we did deviate from the development plan or only implemented parts of it, but in other areas of the property we did significantly more than required. In that respect, I probably don’t serve as an example for your case, but it may show you that they can indeed make things difficult for you. Surely you will have to plant local species, which also makes sense. I would make them a planting proposal and then start a discussion based on that, and maybe it will work out quite simply. I wouldn’t want to go to court, because if I lost and then had to plant under court order, that would annoy me more. Ultimately, you never know what the "better" way would have been; our neighbors put huts somewhere and almost no trees; but I don’t like that either. You never know how the office will react.

Exactly what we are doing. We are in the simplified procedure and adhere 100% to the development plan. And there is nothing of the sort in it.

Yes, but you cannot not specify anything at all. You must at least prove that you comply with the development plan. Therefore, you have to submit the open space usage plan. I'm starting to think you want to fool us or yourself even more. What kind of collectors are those with which you want to cover the entire garden area? Geothermal?

That is the fundamental problem. Owning a house with a garden is not something you grow old in and then sit in a rocking chair. Unless you then have the money for gardeners and housekeepers.