Marah1992
2022-09-09 17:37:30
- #1
Hi, ah cool thanks.
Yes, it’s not black, not quite white…
We even have an expert report from a specialist and a statement from the forestry authority that see no problem with the hazard potential, from which the 25m arise alone.
For you, however, it seems to be a development plan which is to be evaluated differently than a development under Paragraph 34, so for you it was previously an outer area and must be assessed differently.
It would be interesting how UjReimann managed it. When I look on Google, the houses are "directly" next to trees, so definitely no 25-30m distance…
Maybe also interesting: there is a protocol that describes the situation in the inner area quite well: “Meeting forest distance and traffic safety obligation MUEEF 07.02.2019”.
For the distance in building areas there is a 2021 jurisdiction: Lower Saxony Higher Administrative Court ruling from 24.02.2021 - 1 KN 75/1. The ruling states that with the development of a special maintenance concept for the forest area and ensuring the traffic safety obligation through contractual agreements with the forestry office, measures can be taken. The remaining residual risk, as it exists with every tree at a distance to residential buildings below its length, is not an assessment error… So, in short, the distance can be reduced if corresponding measures are taken. Next to our property the forest is private forest, the owner has no problem with our building project and would even sell us the “forest,” so we would bear the risk ourselves. Maybe someone has experience with the inner area (Paragraph 34)?
Yes, it’s not black, not quite white…
We even have an expert report from a specialist and a statement from the forestry authority that see no problem with the hazard potential, from which the 25m arise alone.
For you, however, it seems to be a development plan which is to be evaluated differently than a development under Paragraph 34, so for you it was previously an outer area and must be assessed differently.
It would be interesting how UjReimann managed it. When I look on Google, the houses are "directly" next to trees, so definitely no 25-30m distance…
Maybe also interesting: there is a protocol that describes the situation in the inner area quite well: “Meeting forest distance and traffic safety obligation MUEEF 07.02.2019”.
For the distance in building areas there is a 2021 jurisdiction: Lower Saxony Higher Administrative Court ruling from 24.02.2021 - 1 KN 75/1. The ruling states that with the development of a special maintenance concept for the forest area and ensuring the traffic safety obligation through contractual agreements with the forestry office, measures can be taken. The remaining residual risk, as it exists with every tree at a distance to residential buildings below its length, is not an assessment error… So, in short, the distance can be reduced if corresponding measures are taken. Next to our property the forest is private forest, the owner has no problem with our building project and would even sell us the “forest,” so we would bear the risk ourselves. Maybe someone has experience with the inner area (Paragraph 34)?