Building inquiry / Letter to the District Office

The bungalows are located within the same development plan. However, they are also designated as bungalows there. The two-story buildings are on the other side of the street but are not part of the development plan.

In short: So there are actually no buildings as you want them. I don't know what can be done against this factual situation, but so far I see no contestable reason.

What I just don’t want to understand is that it is actually just a formality that the district office agrees if the municipality is in favor.

I don’t know the specific distribution of responsibilities in your area, but since small municipalities often cannot afford specialists to meet the requirements of a building permit authority, the next larger territorial authority often decides on a building application, so it is not just a formality. However, your architect will know the connections and be able to explain them to you. There are too many possibilities for how this can be regulated in your area to present them all in detail here.

I just think that it comes from the administration of the municipality that is against the construction.

I have not yet understood the authority of the building committee, since this is usually a political body that adopts the development plan but does not deal with individual cases. In any case, it cannot be that the municipality reports two different opinions to the approval authority.

Here in Bavaria, very much initially lands in the committee, which ideally is followed by 1. a legally well-established administration 2. Officially, the output of the committee then goes to the district office. However, I would not rule out in every case that all parties involved are aware of the legal errors, but for various reasons (e.g., upcoming election, better to leave the hot potato with the district office) prefer to rely on the fallback level of the district office.

The district office is originally the competent decision-making authority here and merely uses the construction experts of the municipality for professional evaluation preparation, but decides itself (i.e., not only as a reviewing instance). Usually, remarks from the municipality are interpreted as a recommendation and are followed - here not, because the development plan (in my view clearly) opposes agreeing to an exemption.

What the municipal building committee has to do with this is not clear to me: in such a constellation, it would usually only advise on the municipality’s own construction projects and on individual cases of private builders only if of public importance (e.g., supermarket). If I understand correctly, the architect would not have been present in the building committee as a relative, but as a committee member - and as such excluded from the consultation and resolution on this agenda item (due to bias).

After “considering all contributions of this thread,” I come to the conviction that your special treatment simply - even if the other buildings may seem like a mixed salad from your layman’s perspective - is the only one that stands out.

You are therefore requested to inform us by 13.09.2019 whether you wish to withdraw your preliminary building request, submit amended planning documents, or request an appealable decision

According to my Langenscheidt "Officialese - Plain German," this means: “based on (unless corrected) the records, we would have to reject the request” - and in my opinion in this case also with drums and trumpets administratively court-proof - “You now have the choice: either pay a hefty fee for this slapdown or pull the ripcord.” I strongly recommend the latter - especially if the mentioned date is also the deadline for corrections, because without consultation - preferably with the decision-making authority - an amended plan will not be adjusted sufficiently to obtain the desired approval.

Hello everyone,

thank you very much for your responses.

11ant has probably hit the nail on the head.

After a phone call from the architect with the district office, it seems that in this case there are too many exemptions, so the district office says that if the municipality wants to have it built that way, then the development plan should be amended accordingly.

The fact that there has never been an exemption (in the development plan) is simply due to the fact that the development plan (1970) was created after the houses were already built. Here, the district office says that it would be about time to renew it anyway.

That the head of the municipal main and building department did not point out to us months ago during the initial meeting that he was strictly against it and that despite the approval of the technical committee we have little chance annoys us greatly. He said that we should handle it through a building preliminary inquiry.

We are also very annoyed that the process through the technical committee (which dragged on for months) now seems to have been for nothing.

Well, we are still trying to make a difference in the background and are not giving up yet.

Thank you very much for your expertise.

Best regards Christian

What the municipal building committee has to do with it is not clear to me: in such a constellation, it would usually only advise on the municipality's own building projects, and on individual cases of private builders only if they have public significance (e.g. supermarket).

As far as I know, the technical committee is consulted for every structural change/new construction.

If I understand correctly, the architect would not have been present in the building committee as a relative, but as a committee member - and as such excluded from the consultation and decision-making on this agenda item (due to conflict of interest).

Exactly, yes.

After "considering all contributions in this thread," I come to the conviction that your special treatment simply - even if the other buildings may seem like a mixed bag from your lay perspective - stands out as the only one.

Well, a mixed bag from our lay perspective + the architect’s perspective + 6 different neighboring neighbors + the members of the technical committee’s perspective. It stands out in that there is no FD AND two-story.