Alternatively, the house was neither inhabited nor rented out, right? Owner-occupation also applies, for example, to weekend or holiday homes that are "used" by the owner themselves. As soon as the garden was "owner-used" for recreation, it is probably not mandatory that the house was also inhabited.
Is that so? We have assumed until now that such a property must actually be "inhabited" to obtain this status. Is there a legal trick or something else? Any source references? (The property has indeed been cleared over the past few years and at least partially used as a garden.)
Regarding the motivation for not selling before the end of the speculation period: The owner (we have known each other for a longer time) is somewhat older and I believe that she simply does not want to give the state any (from her point of view) unnecessary money. And the idea regarding the property as well as the possibly feasible lease came from her, since we have been searching unsuccessfully for a long time. The same applies to the price.
We will gather some more information about the property (especially concerning development; she herself did not know exactly offhand). Electricity and water are 100% connected, only with wastewater we are not quite sure. Then we will have another conversation with her regarding a direct sale with possibilities for a refund of the speculation tax.