Well, the neighbor seeing his new neighbors as an enrichment will not be the case here. They probably care more about the open space. I can understand that (the part about not necessarily having to be happy about new neighbors). I find their reaction a bit strange: as if the threat to control everything would change anything. On the contrary, it just makes life harder. As long as everything is in accordance with the provisions of the development plan, that's just how it is. Rather, the targets of the resentment would be the idiots who drew up the development plan – if there were planning errors at all. But as it is, one simply has to accept that everyone has the right to put their house on the property within the framework of the development plan. As for the filling up and the resulting "commander's hill", I can understand that the neighbor feels a bit uneasy, but as long as the 1.30m on the south side was properly taken into account in the calculation of the setback areas, resentment against the builder is actually misplaced. Here I would actually see more of a weakness in the development plan, which unfortunately is very common (also with us). The terrain topology is hardly or not at all taken into account in the development plan. It is treated as if everything were flat... and then people wonder about such Halligen [emoji6] If, for example, a split-level construction method had been required here, the sloping terrain could have been responded to. But hardly anyone makes the effort. In short, it's a shame that the neighbor reacts that way. It has already been written, if he had wanted to have a permanent free view, he should have just bought the property [emoji6]