House construction development plan weekend house area

Hello forum community,

I have a question for you and please do not shy away from the unresolved truth.

We have been offered a plot of land by acquaintances. They just know that we are looking and want to create a home for ourselves. I know, bad timing, but our personal life situation does not allow it otherwise.

The plot is very large and beautifully located. Unfortunately, there is a development plan as a weekend house area on this plot as well as on all others already developed.

We have submitted a preliminary building inquiry and it was approved positively as a weekend house. With all the conditions such as single-story, non-converted attic, floor area, etc.

That way we could implement it.

Now, of course, we are always haunted by the Damocles sword "weekend house area."

Regarding the conditions. There are already about 20 houses there, all of which are used for permanent living. Including the official addresses there. Permanent living is tolerated by the municipality. There is no weekend house left in the basic sense. The development plan also only concerns one side of the street. On the other side, there is normal residential development and everything is already fully developed. The development strip is practically enclosed by normal residential development. The development plan dates from the sixties and was once extended to the maximum possible floor area. Some of the buildings there are also already larger and multi-story.

We simply cannot estimate whether we should take the risk. There are still 2 - 3 more potential building plots there, after that the area would be full.

What possible scenarios could we face, apart from the decrease in value of the building when selling as a weekend house, the loss of the possibility to register officially, and the imposed use as an actual weekend house?

Could one perhaps try to change the development plan in this case? We also do not want to offend the families living there.

Does anyone have relevant experience there or is familiar with the matter?

Or simply build and leave everything as it is and live with the risk.

Thank you in advance for your input.

Regards

My opinion: STAY AWAY!!!

There have already been enough cases where entire settlements were returned to their proper purpose after years of tolerance.
If you build now and DO NOT use it as a weekend house, you are acting intentionally (and with high investment) illegally. For your own safety, start thinking about what you will do if you have to move out with your family and the house becomes only your holiday home.

P.S. I hope you can pay everything in cash. The bank will not necessarily open its vault wide for a weekend house.

There have already been enough cases where entire settlements were returned to their proper use after years of tolerance.

That only means living there on weekends. For now, no more and no less, right?

If you build now and do NOT use it as a weekend house, you are acting illegally with intent (and a high investment). For safety’s sake, start thinking about what you will do if you have to move out with your family and the house becomes only your holiday home.

However, this has been permanently tolerated with primary residence status for decades.

P.S. I hope you can pay everything in cash. The bank will not necessarily open their coffers widely for a weekend house.

Most of it already.

But my main concern is the development plan and to what extent it could or would have to be changed into normal residential development. As mentioned, there is no longer any building used for weekend residential purposes.
On the other side of the street and also as lateral enclosure, there is residential development. Completely legal.
Everything there is fully developed and fiber optic is also currently being installed.

Doesn’t the municipality then have to revise the development plan? Especially after such a long period of tolerance and change of use.

That only means living there on weekends. Nothing more and nothing less for the time being, right?

Correct.

However, this has been tolerated permanently with primary residence for decades.

Doesn't matter. See for example Heilerbachtal, Emkum, and others.
Residents had to leave after decades and the houses were worth nothing anymore. There are supreme court rulings on this. At best, the houses have protection of existing rights so they do not have to be demolished.

Doesn't the municipality have to revise the development plan then? Especially after such long-term tolerance and misuse.

No. The residents are living illegally. So get them out ;-).
Only that is legally correct. Sometimes NABU or similar organizations have already brought such settlements down. Law is law.

I would never come up with the idea to build there (to live there permanently). Besides the illegality, the loss of value of the money invested is too high for me.

However, there are also rulings where it went exactly the other way. In those cases, the development plan had to be changed.

There are already about 20 houses there, all of which are used for permanent residence. Including the local registered addresses. The municipality tolerates permanent residence. There is no longer a single weekend house in the fundamental sense. The B_plan only concerns one side of the street. On the other side is normal residential development and everything is already fully serviced. The development strip is virtually enclosed by normal residential development. The development plan dates back to the sixties and was increased once to the maximum possible floor area. Some of the buildings there are also already larger and multi-storey.

Then one wonders why the plan has not been changed long ago. For the homeowners, that would be an amnesty, with little risk of retroactive punishment of the illegality. So it remains a sword of Damocles for them. And for the mayor and the building officer, continued perversion of justice in twenty cases is also no small matter and can cost them their pension as well as lead to dismissal from civil service. If they are not completely hardened, there will be reasons. The costs for the plan change alone, divided among twenty homeowners and two responsible persons, would be pocket money.