Building on family-owned property - green space with ground monument

If the building neighbors are not farmers and have constructed their buildings legally, there must have been at least a rounding statute, and that is not secret either. Whether there is such a thing or a development plan, the municipality has no choice but to provide information about it. One or the other always has a clearly defined area of application, and your property lies entirely or partially either inside it or not. Not even zero centimeters next to it is one too many. What created or will create the desired building rights can be irrelevant to you. Only if there are none, then keep looking elsewhere and let the next generation inquire again. Close doesn’t count, no one will invent building rights just for you.

I see hardly any chances here. The two mentioned new buildings are not comparable. The orange belongs to the development context opposite and has nothing to do with you. Turquoise is too far away and, in my opinion, already has an existing development plan, as it is already built on. A connection to your property is not recognizable. Added to this is the nature conservation issue. A swamp area is like gold in this sense and is rarely sacrificed for mere residential houses. But asking costs nothing.

The orange belongs to the development context opposite and has nothing to do with you. Turquoise is too far away and, in my opinion, already has an existing development plan, as it is already built up. A connection to your property is not recognizable.

"Connections" do not matter, only belonging or non-belonging to the scopes of areas (which have no soft fields, but exclusively sharp boundaries). I already said that recent development does not indicate a development plan (and also that such a plan is not necessary).

"Connections" do not matter, but exclusively affiliations or non-affiliations to areas of jurisdiction of regions

That is simply not true across the board. Anyone who invests a few years might eventually get their field cultivated (without being a farmer or similar themselves). You just have to be persistent.

That is simply not true across the board. Those who invest a few years may eventually have their field cultivated (without being a farmer themselves or similar). You just have to be persistent.

I was talking about spatial relationships (close doesn’t count, a property or parts of it either belong to an area or they don’t), not about family relationships (grandpa has already given up farming and you yourself are not yet a farmer).

"Connections" do not matter, but exclusively belonging or not belonging to areas of applicability of territories (which have no fuzzy boundaries, but exclusively sharp borders).

Of course, connections do matter. It seems to me you need to refresh your knowledge. Quote from the Federal Administrative Court ruling 4 BN 37.05 of 15.09.2005: The criteria decisive for this delimitation have been clarified in the case law of the Federal Administrative Court. Decisive for the existence of a building connection within the meaning of § 34 of the Building Code is the extent to which the successive development, despite any existing building gaps, conveys the impression of compactness and cohesion according to traffic perception and the area intended for development (still) belongs to this connection [...]. An open space surrounded by development on all sides, which is so large that its development is no longer seen as a casual continuation of the existing development and therefore does not appear as a building gap, is not within a building connection within the meaning of § 34 para. 1 of the Building Code; it is thus development law-wise an outer area [...]. How close the sequence of structures must be to still present as contiguous development is not to be decided according to geographical-mathematical standards, but based on a comprehensive evaluation of the concrete facts of the individual case [...]. "