New house construction in a holiday home settlement

The question is whether a cock will crow afterwards. So, holiday apartment area. Meier applies for a holiday cabin, which he gets approved through the building permit even without solar panels and foil cladding. The thing is erected. Meier now spends four weeks vacation inside. He likes it quite a bit, he extends and extends and does not move out anymore. He goes to the municipality and registers his permanent residence at Meisenstieg 18. The registration office gratefully accepts this. No one will ask about the Energy Saving Ordinance there either. In my opinion, it will pass like this. Or?

As soon as it comes to legal violations, our official is immediately there again with advice and assistance.

Thanks again for the answers so far.

To counter the discussion regarding legal violations:
I do not intend to build illegally!

I am just surprised because in the holiday home development there are many holiday homes (occupied year-round) that by far do not comply with the energy saving ordinance. I cannot imagine that all were built illegally.

I know that some mobile homes were erected in the 1980s and have been converted into holiday homes in the last 5-10 years.
I think I read that in this case the energy saving ordinance does not apply (a certain m² exemption)?
That could of course be an explanation.
But it could also be nonsense, since the extension from mobile home to holiday home might represent a change of use and thus again be subject to the energy saving ordinance...

The possibility that the municipality or anyone else explicitly permits the construction of holiday homes without complying with the energy saving ordinance does not exist, right?

Here is a problem of understanding. The Energy Saving Ordinance applies to new buildings, not to existing ones. Holiday homes have exemptions in the Energy Saving Ordinance. Permanently inhabited houses are no longer holiday homes. However, if they do exist and were built legally, hardly anyone will demand to turn them into a kfw shoo-in-dead palace just because they are permanently inhabited.
However, keep in mind that, for example, a Danish summer house built by ebk with electric heating, hot water via a flow heater, and a wood stove can become seriously expensive if permanently inhabited, because it simply was not designed for that. Karsten

Here is a misunderstanding. The Energy Saving Ordinance applies to new buildings, not existing ones.

For clarification:
My wife is building a holiday home without the Energy Saving Ordinance and does not use it as her main residence.
2 months later I buy this existing property and use it as my main residence. Now I don't need the Energy Saving Ordinance because I bought it and didn't build it?

Isn't that ridiculous?

Tricky, but not cheap. When she buys, notary and real estate transfer tax and court. When you buy from her again notary, court, only real estate transfer tax is omitted as far as I know between relatives. Better if she buys, and then rents to you.

Better if she buys, and then rents to you.

No, every four months they switch between him living with her and her living with him *duckandrun*

Seriously: duty is duty, and schnapps is schnapps. This statement works identically with "regulation" and "sense."