If you see it that way, then it probably is so.
I don’t just see it that way, it is legally anchored. The building authority must (!) review a building application for gross defects within 10 days and, if necessary, request additional information (found in several legal sources). If they do not do this, the 1-month period applies, i.e., the building application is deemed approved after the deadline expires.
The municipality tries to override the deadlines by claiming that the application cannot be accepted. Which, of course, is nonsense if the builder already has a receipt stamp (according to their own statement). Whether the caseworker has to enter the application into any system is not the applicant’s concern; the deadline runs regardless.
The municipality is avoiding a written (!) rejection here. There is no reason for this unless one assumes that a written rejection of the application would not disadvantage the municipality. The caseworker could therefore have reviewed the building application in the exemption procedure within 10 days after receipt and—if the matter is as clear as it appears from his email excerpts—rejected it in writing and with reasons, and would have had to do so.
However, this poses a problem: because then the administrative act is officially in progress and the applicant holds a written rejection which can be appealed if necessary. The municipality is obviously wriggling here to avoid handing over a written and binding statement to the applicant.
There is only one reason for this, namely that the municipality fears that financial damage could arise from the unclear situation.
By the way, I am really looking forward to the final solution. Hopefully, there will be something to read about it then. In my opinion, most of the proposals are not effective.
I suggested to the builder that he get an excavator, have two strips of topsoil pushed aside, and set 4 wooden stakes to mark the corners of the house. Max costs 200€ for the excavator and 4 wooden stakes.
The whole thing is a construction measure and thus represents the start of construction.
Then take a photo and send a brief note to the caseworker stating that construction has begun and that the building application from xx.xx.2014 (receipt stamp) is deemed approved since xx.xx.2014 (1 month later).
Then the authority has to take action; according to their view, stop construction immediately, but this also only works in writing. In this way, one inevitably obtains a written statement from the city/municipality and the risk is absolutely manageable. Even if the municipality wanted to enforce an administrative fine or similar, it must finally acknowledge and assess the building application as a process. Otherwise, how could it justify that the construction is unlawful?
Best regards
Dirk Grafe