Building permit before completion of development

we are hurrying

a bit late. Now the authority can legally delay for so long that it never comes to the embarrassment of having to grant permission this year.

Insofar, no BG has concretely been refused yet

IMHO it couldn’t refuse if the development plan is legally valid, the plots were lawfully formed in the cadastre and belong to the municipality.

but basically they said they won’t issue a BG as long as the development is not secured.

That’s also correct. But under the above-mentioned conditions, the development is secured.

It can and will be interpreted when awarding the development to an external party that the development is only secured when it is actually finished.

I consider this interpretation very daring and claim that it would not withstand judicial review. The start of construction is clear; the municipality can block until completion, but completion is not required for the building permit. Otherwise, in development areas with construction roads, no permits could be granted yet, let alone construction started.

but regularly both the contractual side and the actual implementation must be ticked off before building permits are issued.

I cannot see any legal basis for that, unless a project developer is developing and the urban development contract does not provide for a security deposit or it has not yet been paid.

I consider this interpretation very daring and claim that it would not withstand judicial review. The start of construction is clear, the municipality can block until completion, but completion is not required for the building permit. Otherwise, in development areas with construction roads, approval could not be granted yet, let alone construction started.

Well, you just need a crazy administration... I won’t say anything more about building authorities either . Although the provisional construction road in my case (just three meters wide of asphalt rolled flat) was finished. The worst part is, by the time you win your lawsuit, the development is probably already completed.

That's how it is, even though there is no legal regulation for it at all. One might call it bureaucratic arbitrariness, but it rather seems not to be an isolated case.

a bit late

It couldn't be done earlier. The reallocation process, which was also contested, the city took forever until the land registers were updated (small local court with only part-time staff) and the owners were assigned to their new plots. As soon as we had a commitment for a plot, we ran to the general contractors, but they are all fully booked to the brim.

There is news from my contact at the Building Regulations Office:
Today, independently of my case, the sewage works informed that the secured development is expected to be completed by July 21.
So, initially, it is not to be expected that there will be a building permit (BG) this year, but only as of the aforementioned date or later.
However, the colleague is making an effort to show possibilities – one must give her that.
I should ask the sewage works whether they see a way to "establish" the secured development otherwise. It might be conceivable to have a section-wise secured development. I don't have much hope for that, but a call doesn’t cost anything.
Furthermore, I should inquire at the NRW Ministry of Construction; they supposedly respond quickly to citizens’ inquiries. The background is as follows:
Once a building permit (BG) is granted, according to the local Building Regulations Office, one is entitled to start construction immediately. On the other hand, this is not permissible as long as the building constructed or to be constructed cannot be connected to the sewage system. If I would "rightfully" start building with the BG in hand, I could be required to dismantle the building again. But since I was actually authorized to build by the authority with the BG, I could assert claims for damages against it to be compensated for the damages I incurred (which can quickly amount to six figures depending on construction progress). For this reason, construction offices are instructed – and this is also reflected in the Building Code – not to grant a BG in advance.
And now the Ministry of Construction comes into play: I should explain the situation there and ask whether the Ministry could allow the local building authority to grant a BG prematurely under certain conditions. For instance, that could be that I waive any claims for damages that could theoretically arise as described above. Or I give a sworn affidavit that I do not intend to start construction before the secured or actually completed development. Something of that kind.
But this is the last straw. If they do not see such a possibility there, then nothing more can be done at this point and one can only hope that the BKG is extended. But one will probably only learn about that in the next legislative period.

Sounds interesting, but honestly, I consider that only a theoretical possibility. Trial makes wise.