Existing buildings on plots in a new development plan

There is always the possibility to change the development plan.
For example, there have been 7 changes/amendments in the meantime to the development plan of our residential area, which was established in the early 1970s. Sometimes only individual plots are affected, sometimes several streets.

But certainly not the individual or the citizen.
And yes: apparently the development plan was changed here.

and also may not be served with entrances and exits (half circles are the symbol for this according to the legend):

Thank you, I didn’t know that yet.

Sorry, but I have to ask again. Did you mean then that it will not be possible to build on the gardens as well?

I know about existing rights, as long as the hut is only renovated. If it is demolished, construction must comply with the new regulations. That applies to the houses. What happens with the plots, I don’t know.
I find it incomprehensible that they did not enlarge the building window right away. However, it is somehow also sympathetic that they want to preserve the old one. Just as says.
Garden land is, as far as I know, not buildable at all, but only with a new development plan. So the chance for buildability would have been a new building window.
But that is all just my layman’s understanding.
This is a task for our expert

By the way, a bit more illustration would have been more informative.

Regardless of what 11ant and ypg write (their statements are basically correct), the current development plan does not protect you if the city comes up with the idea of densification in 10 or 20 years. The city can then easily (after consultation in the building committee, etc.) change the development plan. Although this is unlikely, you have no guarantee.

That's like looking into a crystal ball. How should one know what the incumbents will decide in the future? When I look at the plan, given a corresponding housing shortage and pressure from the public, one could very quickly come to the conclusion that the beautiful Planstr. B would be wasted if it were not accessed from both sides. So yes, I do see the danger, for example, if you are near Munich. In Gägelow, however, the danger presumably does not exist.

I don't understand why they didn't just enlarge the building window right away.

Hello, are you serious? - they have already been granted two special privileges: 14 instead of 12 m building window depth and 5 m bonus length at the back for the garages that are already there. Having to move them forward by two meters in the worst-case scenario during demolition and rebuilding doesn’t make much difference. Another approach can be admired at with : there, the building windows were tightly wrapped around the existing buildings – resulting in having to deviate from the building window even for a simple external thermal insulation system retrofit (see post #5 there). This constant whining in Germany when a builder doesn’t see their personal exception listed in a statute :-(

The question now would be whether it would be possible for the owners to also build on the large remaining strip at the bottom, even if indirectly?

I understand it as the OP wanting to "densify." At least it has always been planned as a possibility. And now it would no longer be possible.

I understand it as the OP wanting to "densify." At least it has always been planned as a possibility. And now it would no longer be possible.

No, I have no problem if it stays as established. We are one of those with a newly parceled plot below the gardens.

We were already aware that there is no guarantee that it will remain free forever. But now voices have arisen in our environment from "listen, the development plan doesn’t matter at all, in 4 years at the latest there will be construction in the gardens" to "there must be no construction there," so I at least wanted to take the opportunity to ask for advice from an impartial source.