Conversion of outdoor area into building land - possibilities

However, the part of the property that is suitable as a location for another house is in the outer area.

Who says that?

On the other, the extent of the inner area.

You mean the excerpt from the BayernAtlas?

It is basically exactly the part of the mother-in-law’s property excluded from the inner area as well as the other adjacent property.

You mean the reddish area? This has no planning law significance at all.

the hinterland

Where do you want to build? East of the existing house?

Or would it be wiser to put the house in the garden of the already existing house

No.

I had hoped that, for example, a development statute might provide a possibility to build there.

That can be done. However, I do not see any necessity here at all. A benevolent approval authority can indeed approve according to §34 of the Building Code. Yes, the land use plan is only preparatory land-use planning. It does not create building rights. It does not delineate outer area from inner area. But it is a statement of intent by the municipality. It turns the property into land with development expectations. Developing a binding land-use plan here to create building land would be disproportionate for this small area.

Who says that?

There was a real estate appraiser for the existing house and property, who, among other things, obtained information from the district office and conveyed it to us that way.

You mean the reddish area? It has no planning law significance.

Okay, based on the statement of the real estate appraiser and this view from BayernAtlas, I assumed that this marks the inner area.

Where do you want to build? East of the existing house?

I roughly marked it on the aerial photo. This would be the most convenient location in terms of access. Otherwise, we are not fixed on that.

No.

Okay, thanks for the assessment.

It can be done. However, I don't see the necessity here. A benevolent licensing authority can certainly approve according to §34 of the Building Code.

That sounds very positive already. Building according to §34 of the Building Code would be absolutely fine for us. We are glad if we are allowed to build at all :-)

Many thanks for the detailed answer and for taking the time! The possibility to obtain an overview of the inner and outer area, is that only directly through the district office, right?

The possibility to obtain an overview of the inner or outer area is then only directly through the district office, right?

Probably not, because in most cases such an overview does not exist. Unless your municipality has issued a corresponding statute (e.g. inner area, rounding, inclusion, clarification statute) (I have found none), it is a case-by-case decision. Your case is not clear. It is possible that the city and district office do not even agree.

I could "play dumb" during the conversation at the district office and say: it is declared as residential building land

That is not "playing dumb" but showing genuine interest. It shows that you have already dealt with the property and the planning law basics.

so it seems to be in your interest to build there

Yes, but the land use plan is set up by the city, which is not the building permit authority. They may have other intentions. My advice: go into the conversation with the firm conviction that it is building land. Focus the need for clarification mainly on the size and position of the building structure and the development, not on a fundamental buildability.

Information at the district office

Which exactly?

communicated this way

What exactly did she communicate? In writing? Is there an appraisal?

that this characterizes the inner area

No, it characterizes the areas of actual use according to the cadastre record. They are based on the subjective classification of the last surveyor on site or an aerial photo evaluator at the State Office for Digitization, Broadband and Surveying (LDBV). For your concern, the areas are meaningless.

What is not entirely clear to me is, outdoor area is outdoor area.

To be honest, nothing looks like outdoor area to me: in the supposedly outdoor area at the top of the plan, I see on the one hand too much settlement to believe it is all agriculture, and to me it very much looks like the next section of a development area in a twenty-year scale, i.e., more like a scope boundary than an inner area boundary. My suspicion is that they are waiting until the majority of abandoned farms have become demolished abandoned farms and then want to consider a development plan based on the demand that will exist then.

Probably not, since in most cases there is no such overview. Unless your municipality has issued a corresponding statute (e.g. inner area, rounding off, inclusion, clarification statute) (I did not find one), it is a case-by-case decision. Your case is not clear-cut. It is possible that the city and the district office do not even agree.

Okay, so that's how it works in practice. Good to know. Then I'll start with the district office and then proceed to the city.

Yes, but the land use plan is drawn up by the city, which is not the building permit authority. They may have a different intention.
My advice: Go into the conversation with the firm conviction that it is building land. Focus the need for clarification mainly on the size and position of the building structure and the development, not on the fundamental buildability.

Thank you very much for the tip. I will try it that way.

What exactly did they communicate? In writing? Is there an appraisal report?

Yes, there is a short appraisal report stating that part of the property is located in the outer area and, therefore, construction is to be considered uncertain. That is why 2300 sqm were only valued as hinterland and not as building land.

No, it designates the areas of actual use according to the cadastre evidence. They are based on the subjective classification of the last surveyor on site or an aerial image evaluator at the State Office for Digitization, Broadband and Surveying (LDBV). For your concern, the areas are meaningless.

Learned something new again.

Thank you for the explanations. That helps me immensely to go into the conversation with more knowledge.
Basically, that doesn’t sound so hopeless after all.

To be honest, nothing there looks like an outdoor area to me: in the supposedly outdoor area at the top of the plan, I see on the one hand too much settlement to believe it's all just agriculture, and to me it very much looks like the next section of a building area on a twenty-year scale, i.e. more like a zoning boundary than an inner-area boundary. My guess is that they are still waiting until most of the abandoned remaining farms have become demolished remaining farms and then want to consider a development plan based on the demand that will be then.

thanks also for your assessment. Well, the best thing would be if the property appraiser was wrong. I myself have already wondered about this seemingly arbitrary boundary, but I am not an expert.