DG
2015-02-26 10:21:19
- #1
Well, that will again be a matter of legal logic. If the development is not permissible at all, meaning there is no possibility of approval, then a rejection of any applications is also unnecessary, because they should not have been submitted in the first place. In this respect, it is a probably lawful refusal to accept an (inadmissible) application. There simply is no application processing.
That is not correct. I can submit applications as much as I like and no matter how nonsensical they may be – the authority has to acknowledge receipt and also decide in writing and with reasons within the deadline even about the biggest nonsense.
It should also be noted here that the authority can transfer the development to a third party by contract – but does not have to. Basically, it is responsible for the development; if no contract with a third party is concluded that is reasonable (a nice legal broad concept), the authority/municipality is again obliged to carry out the development.
If an authority plays "refusal to accept," one should ask what interest the authority has in this!? If it can reject the application with reasons, that can be done in a few days. Standard letter with the corresponding paragraphs and back to the applicant. This way, the authority's rationale is in writing and thus ... contestable. The refusal to accept only serves the purpose of not initiating the process. This only makes sense if the authority suspects that the application is fundamentally approvable, but (financial) disadvantages arise for the authority/municipality.
Best regards Dirk Grafe