Gap in building / Access for surrounding properties / §34 Neighbor development

These are land use categories in development plans. WR = purely residential area (only residential houses, garages, playgrounds), WA = general residential area (without further restrictions in the textual part of the development plan: housing and local supply facilities).

If nothing is currently recorded in the land register, then no right of way exists and you can close off the access! Here you would have an approach to impose the paving costs on the neighbors in exchange for a right of way. Of course, this only works if the properties can also be accessed otherwise and you have a thick skin for neighborhood disputes

Addendum: There is a current BGH ruling on this. Google "BGH decides: No right of way by habit".

Hello, although there is no right of way by habit, there is a necessity right of way if the property cannot otherwise be reached from a public area. That means the neighbor of the rear property has the right to have a right of way registered in the land register. But—with the registration of the necessity right of way, the conditions can be included. This is on the one hand a necessity right of way rent (a kind of lease, calculated from the interest on the value of the way) and on the other hand also the maintenance obligations (cleaning, repair costs, ...).

I have all this on a property that belongs to me. Unfortunately, my ancestors forgot about the necessity right of way rent back then, or exchanged it for a personal right of way across the neighbor’s property to their utility garden. The garden can be reached, albeit by a considerable detour, via a public road and thus this right of way no longer exists today.

I'd rather have more garden in the back

Then the rejection was not a mistake. I consider it unlikely that you are allowed to be closer to the street than in your plan in #1.

I have a friend who built his city villa right in the middle of the property

That is also the expected approvable location here. But then no city villa, rather a one-story building with a pitched roof and dormer windows. Judging by your phrasing, that would be two knockout criteria. In addition:

I want to lie quietly in my garden at home

Sometimes you wouldn't believe how much traffic two houses can cause. At least that is the subjective impression when you lie quietly in the garden and the neighbors drive off a little bit displaced to go shopping and shortly thereafter to take the kids to sports (8 vehicle movements in 2 hours).

After much back and forth, it has emerged (Grundbuchauszug) that only the easement is registered, but not the maintenance of each party by one third.

Therefore, we have now definitively withdrawn from this property and will continue searching.

Thanks again for the tips and assessments/advice!

not the maintenance of each party by one third

Even though the decision has already been made, I have to comment that it doesn't help to write the maintenance as one third each. Because what exactly is maintenance? The ideas about that differ enormously. One party only wants to spread grit against ice in winter, party two is only interested in the topic of leaves, and you want regular sweeping against dust. Endless potential for conflicts. So, classically, you do the only reasonable thing: nothing.

So you do the only reasonable thing: nothing

And in this case, it could well be that both parties are happy when the stupid third party comes along and is now responsible for everything.

But it also shows how emotional buying a property can be. After the first (rational reasonable) rejection, there were sleepless nights, further negotiations and exchange of information, and I had even roughly finished planning the house and secured the financing framework.

And now we have canceled again. I am curious how this will all continue.