Land in the outer area - Is it worth objecting?

Hello dear forum,

we have the prospect of our desired plot, but have now learned by phone that it lies in an outlying area and according to the caseworker, we probably have little chance of a positive decision. However, the lady spoke in the subjunctive, so I still want to give it a try. But not without tips.

About the plot:
It is approximately 3000 sqm, securely fenced including access. It lies directly on the main road and is the last plot in the row before the industrial area begins in about 600m. Between the plot and the industrial area there is forest that borders the plot on two sides.
The plot is officially in a residential area, but the land use plan/zoning plan runs directly on the border with the neighboring plot. All connections are available and all plots on the street are developed. In my opinion, there is nothing against a development according to P. 34, except obstinate caseworkers.

Or am I missing something?

Best regards

Edit: 221 is the plot

In my opinion, there is nothing against development according to P. 34, except stubborn clerks.

Yes there is. Namely, that it is an outer area and thus the matter is settled. Unless you have a privileged business (farmer, gravel pit, etc.). This has nothing to do with being stubborn. In my opinion, you can also drive 120 km/h on expanded country roads. Still, I am not allowed to. Period. End of story.

But is there really no possibility at all? I understand the reasons against development in the outer area. But they clearly do not make sense here, especially since the plot was still included in the development plan a few years ago. In my view, the plot represents a gap in the development that would be closed by building on it. Further fragmentation is not given, as there is forest all around and this is clearly the only free plot.

The property is officially located in a residential area

contradicts directly

however, the land use plan/zoning plan runs exactly along the border to the neighboring property.

What qualifies the type of structural use more officially than the zoning plan?

In my opinion, there is nothing against development according to P. 34

According to your information, both the land use plan and the zoning plan speak against it.

Or am I overlooking something?

Probably not, you are just misclassifying the facts.

But is there really no possibility at all?

Yes: - §35 Building Code - Amendment of the zoning plan

But they obviously make no sense here

Perhaps. Unfortunately, we cannot form our own opinion on this due to lack of aerial images, land use plan, and zoning plan.

above all, the property was still included in the zoning plan a few years ago

Who removed it from there and for what reasons?

In my view, the property represents a gap in the development

The cadastral map and the surrounding description clearly contradict this view.

Unfortunately, I cannot provide a development plan or a detailed land use plan because I cannot find one. Why it was removed, no one could or would tell me.

The lines and the numbering initially only indicate that it is a parcel of land. They do not indicate that it is building land. The outer area begins behind the last development. The chances are rather very low that it will be rezoned as building land.