Then show it then.
Now you’re confusing me. Something is already stated in the development plan, but on the other hand, it doesn’t exist?
Presumably, some terminological ambiguities are going on with you. I do not see the shown area for five cents as a candidate for a development plan, and besides, probably as an outer area. A psychologist has nothing to do with forestry, agriculture, or livestock farming. Even if the patients are hunters, I don’t see you settling there. An archaeological monument refers to Roman baths, megalithic tombs, or the like, whose traces are also supposed to remain there.
There are lists of archaeological monuments / archaeological sites online in several federal states. I generally do not assume that pure suspected cases would be marked as "BD" on maps. Basic indications of Roman or Celtic settlements are rarely unknown.
No, an archaeological monument is not the swamp, but an area where underground finds relevant to archaeology are expected or known. Protection as a monument is another administrative act altogether. Archaeological monument areas are also designated as expected find areas. It is basically a territory marking by the monument authorities. Our church community had the problem with all areas near the old church. These were registered as archaeological monuments, but after an archaeological excavation the area was allowed to be built on.We thought it was a archaeological monument because the property becomes increasingly swampy at the back. Probably only an inquiry at the municipality will provide a result as to what exactly is supposed to be there.
Young development is not a sure indication of the existence of a development plan, whose establishment, as I said, I do not expect here either. The municipality may have enacted a rounding statute to include the previous external area into the non-planned internal area. For example, as possibly happened here, to allow building by non-farmers next to properties already built with farmsteads.I am of the opinion that there is a development plan due to the newly constructed houses which have appeared in the immediate vicinity in recent years (not visible on the old Google Maps images). The request has been made to the municipality; I do not have it at the current time.
A swamp may possibly be designated as a biotope under nature protection but is not a ground monument. The term regularly means archaeological relics which only in very rare cases are relocated, and regularly remain in the ground at the site and are not to be built over. Something to do with settlement culture from prehistoric times.The core of this post was whether there is experience regarding building on green spaces which were additionally designated as BD. [ / ] We thought it might be a ground monument because the property becomes increasingly marshy at the back.
Young development is not a sure indication of the existence of a development plan, the establishment of which I do not expect here, as I said. The municipality may have issued a rounding statute to include the previous outer area into the unplanned inner area. For example, as may have happened here, to allow building by non-farmers adjacent to properties already developed with farmsteads.
A swamp may possibly be designated as a biotope under nature conservation, but it is not an archaeological monument. The term regularly refers to archaeological relics, which are only rarely relocated and usually remain in the ground on site and are not supposed to be built over. Something related to settlement culture from prehistoric times.