Is the involvement of the nature conservation authority necessary for a preliminary building inquiry?

Hello,
thank you for your feedback.

You don't get it, you look at it. Most are available online anyway.

As I already wrote: I did not receive a land use plan. It is not available online.

To clarify before you repeat it several times: You don't make the municipality or the office understand how the public situation looks. They make _you_ understand! And you don't clarify anything, they clarify things for you!
And even though there are some bureaucratic idiots (they exist everywhere), you can still assume that they know what they are doing.

I would like you to first carefully read the posts of other readers. I have written that I examined the land use plan together with the employees at the municipality. According to the land use plan, the property is 2/3 in the inner area. These "bureaucratic idiots" have confirmed this to me both verbally and in writing. So the public situation is as I have already described it. However, if an employee of the district office makes contradictory statements about the land use plan and thus the public situation, I will make use of my rights and make that clear to him.

No, of course not. That's clear. In color on the land use plan.

Exactly! And since this colorful land use plan clearly states that more than half of the property lies in the inner area, I will probably have to make that clear to the authorities who mistakenly see it differently.

But certainly. Of course it clarifies the matter somewhat better. Because honestly: The prognosis looks pretty bad if 1/3 is in the unplanned inner area, a 34 zone, 2/3 lies in the outer area, and on top of that a sloppy drawing is submitted where you only need to make one mistake to get a rejection.
I go so far as to expand my question from last year to include the building inquiry. I bet some rules were not considered.
P.S. Read the Building Code!

As I said, I would wish you would read other readers' posts more carefully. As mentioned, 2/3 lies in the inner area and 1/3 in the outer area. Not the other way around!
I do not suspect that we made "sloppy" errors in the plans. The plan was prepared by a friend who is an architect, who informed us why he placed the house exactly at this spot on the property... namely, because this is the area where the unplanned inner area applies.
I would gladly take your bet. We asked two responsible employees at the municipality's building department how they assess the chances of success of a building inquiry. According to their statements, both see no problems if the residential building is located in the part of the property that is inside the inner area and if the house fits into the existing development.
We asked a friendly architect how he sees the chances of success of a building inquiry. According to him, there is no reason why building would not be allowed on the inner part of the property.
We asked a civil engineer how he sees the chances of success of a building inquiry. He came to the same conclusion.

Before we want to buy the property, we wanted to secure these statements by means of a legally binding building inquiry. Since the district office basically assesses the building project differently (outer area instead of unplanned inner area) than all the previously mentioned authorities/persons, I am asking the questions I already posed above. Can the district office declare the property to be outer area although the land use plan says something else? Or was a mistake made by the district office by accident...
Regards

a) Can the district office simply "decide" that the construction project is in the outer area?

No. Attached is a text from a similar case discussing the "outer area within the inner area" issue. Quote: The Building Code differentiates, with regard to areas not falling within the scope of a development plan, only between the interconnected built-up parts of a locality (§ 34 Building Code) and the outer area (§ 35 Building Code). The criteria relevant for this distinction are clarified in the case law of the Federal Administrative Court. Crucial for the existence of a development connection within the meaning of § 34 Building Code is the extent to which the consecutive buildings, despite any existing gaps, convey the impression of continuity and belonging together according to general perception, and whether the area intended for development (still) belongs to this connection [...]. An open space surrounded on all sides by buildings, which is so large that its development no longer appears as a casual continuation of the existing buildings and therefore does not appear as a building gap, is not within a development connection according to § 34 (1) Building Code; it is thus, from a building law perspective, an outer area [...]. How closely buildings must follow each other to still be considered continuous development is decided not according to geographical-mathematical standards, but based on a comprehensive assessment of the concrete circumstances of the individual case [...]. " End quote Note: The assignment of the property to §34 or §35 depends on the existence of a development connection.

I have clarified several times with the municipality by inspecting the land use plan where the unplanned inner area extends from and to. Of course, in the submitted plans, the house is only marked as being in the inner area.

The municipality can issue a statement. However, as far as I know, the building authority ultimately determines whether a development connection actually exists. There are in my opinion also guidelines for this, but I do not know them in detail. The land use plan, on the other hand, has no binding influence on the classification! Apparently, the authority so far does not see a development connection and has assigned the project to §35. This can be challenged – we have already done so successfully. Since you do not post any pictures, an assessment of the facts on our part is accordingly not possible.

b) Is it even necessary/usual/legal for the nature conservation authority to “have a say” in construction projects in the inner area at all?

Yes, of course.

If I make it clear to the responsible processors at the district office that it is not the outer area, I hope that the nature conservation authority can be bypassed.

To my knowledge, the nature conservation authority can never be bypassed. It is always involved in the decision regarding construction. The question is rather according to which paragraph the project is assessed when no development plan exists – §35 or §34. Where, for example, a development plan exists, very extensive text versions on greening and so on are often established. Everyone must comply with these. The only difference is that here it has already been assessed and approved. As written above, in your case §35 probably applies. This does not mean that construction is excluded. The best way to receive a positive decision is to cooperate with the nature conservation authority. Find out who they are, what questions or concerns they have, explain again that you only want to build in the "inner area" and gladly take measures that protect the part of the property with outer area from negative impacts on nature. Ask what you can do for that! There are no machines there, but often people who are interested in the topic. I would only bring out the big hammer when the facts are clearly in your favor and the authorities refuse to engage in dialogue.

As I already wrote: I did not receive a land use plan. Online it is not available.

[...]

Exactly! And since this colorful land use plan clearly says

Huh? What now?! You are contradicting yourself.

In our case, the land use plan is only a planning instrument of the municipality, which is based on known and assumed boundaries. For specific building inquiries, the application goes to the building authority, which then checks, among other things, whether a survey is necessary for the construction project. We were able to save the surveying costs because, after consultation with the lower nature conservation authority, it was determined that our building envelope for the planned extension has a 6 m distance to the presumed boundary to the outer area/landscape protection area. No sealing is allowed in the 6 m buffer zone. The boundary is defined by the rear building alignment, which is somewhat complicated in our case since it is not easy to see which buildings are relevant, as, for example, shelters for sheep should not be considered, but these are visible in the aerial photographs.

I would wish that you first read the posts of other readers carefully.

As said, 2/3 are in the inner area and 1/3 in the outer area. And not the other way around!

I would also wish that you do. It does not matter for the answer whether one uses 1/3 or 2/3. In another post you write something about 60% inner area or there is the headline "Property half in the outer area." It doesn’t matter at all: in the end, the area counts, meaning the plan and the submitted drawing with the land use and the boundaries.

I said that I have examined the land use plan together with the employees at the municipality.

Here lies the catch: you constantly express that you are a specialist or you first tell the office how things are done. You make it clear ... now you are also an expert ... It does not make the matter easier if you tell the bureaucracy how it has to be and then ask such questions here. We do not know you and thus suspect that you might also be wrong about other things somehow. Who knows what kind of property this is in the middle of nowhere, where you think the nature authority has no say. It was/is undeveloped, wasn’t it?

The plan was made by a friendly architect,

Oh … that’s just wonderful.

We asked a friendly architect how he sees the chances of success for a preliminary building request. According to him, he sees no reason why one should not be allowed to build on the inner part of the property.

Why don’t you just ask him these questions? The forum does not exactly answer your questions in large numbers, which you then almost repeat here. Don’t get me wrong: we wish you well with your building plot. But if you have questions, you usually have to provide something so others can “work” with it. To believe it works differently, it doesn’t work even the fourth time. If you then come with things like telling an authority (as a complete layman) how things look, that somehow has the flavor that the original poster, that is you, is wearing rose-colored glasses rather than real ones.

As written above, §35 probably applies to you. That does not mean that building is excluded.

No, an unplanned inner area should actually be §34. The other part then §35 or garden land. A few weeks ago we had a question here about buying a developed property in a §35 area, but with semi-detached and terraced houses all around, so a planned neighborhood, somehow. In the end, there was no chance to add even another garage on the 3000 sqm (or so). Nothing to do! The original poster did not buy.

No, an unplanned inner area should actually be the 34 one. The other part then 35 or garden land.

Furthermore, there was an additional note by email that building preliminary inquiries for construction projects in outer areas – as would be the case for me – can take longer because the nature conservation authority has to be involved.

The assessment of what constitutes an inner area within the meaning of §34 is not decided by the original poster, the municipality, or the land use plan. Even within cities, this is ultimately determined by the building authority. Since the relevant authority here already states that it is an outer area, it probably won’t work with §34, regardless of which half is where.

Even if all parties agree that a part of the property can be built on, each part must still be described and assessed precisely. This requires the nature conservation authority and §35, because the development plan is created for the entire property and not just for parts of it.