Positioning of a single-family house in the second row on a farm

Thank you very much for your feedback. That already helps us a lot with further considerations!

At least your farm property falls under §34 and not §35, so the house does not have to be a farmer's service apartment nor be limited to old foundations. However, the location plan excerpt raises the suspicion that a demolition on your property could change the inner-outer area boundary. So, submit a building pre-application for the house on a concrete desired spot once with and once without demolition. I would also look for the location considering that the house remains accessible via public areas even after a property division.

: That is a good point. I will have the wording in the building permit issued by the building authority clarified once again. Here, an approval capability was certified on the footprint of the barn, but I had inquired about the southern part of the property. I will especially address the issue of the inner-/outer-area boundary again.

The topic of a possible property division is also a good hint. The road located to the east of the property is a district road, from which access should basically be possible.

The question that runs through my mind while reading: are the barns still used, and if so, how? You mark one that would have to be demolished, but what about the others?

Because even I would basically want a house on a property that could operate autonomously without a farmyard, if desired.
The financial bank only wants to finance if the property ownership of the land also belongs to the builder. Therefore, as far as I know, splitting is necessary.

: The barns and outbuildings are mainly used as storage space, e.g., grid boxes with wood, etc.
The plan is indeed that ownership will be transferred to me before the start of construction.

I do not necessarily see it that way, but it's advisable. You can also finance on a leasehold site. But a yard of this size will probably be a residual farm and, if still agriculturally operated at all, will probably be abandoned in the medium term. It is mostly nothing more than procrastination, which is why the outbuildings are still standing at all. Therefore, I would ask myself here whether the perspective for the barns will be more of a residential conversion or a demolition. I consider simply "putting a new residential building wherever there is space" to be an unwise idea. At least in the plan, I would split now (and already consider this in all connections), and ideally also speak about ownership transfers. Creating further value first and postponing what should happen until the inheritance case is unnecessarily expensive. Although this traditionally is hard to get through to old farmer stubborn minds.

“Procrastination” is probably the right word here. Prospectively, presumably no one will take up the agricultural operation again; currently it is fully leased (except for the farmstead). The larger, rear barn is also covered with asbestos cement sheets and is therefore a special case in demolition…
Our thought was also to demolish the remaining barns in the future, but without a precise timeline.
We also see the old residential building as a potential demolition candidate, as it was built before 1900 (no monument protection) and without major renovations. I estimate the roof's remaining lifespan to be not very long. Currently, the house is still occupied by grandmother (> 85 years) and aunt (> 60 years). Ownership transfer would not be an issue and has already been discussed.

Yes, creepy! Nobody wants to live between this massive cluster of buildings and walls. First, there needs to be a breakthrough, I think.
I find the idea of demolishing the central barn and placing the house there quite good. Maybe removing the outbuilding and the garden house as well. There would then presumably be a separate access possible there. However, it also depends on how heavily the road is used. If it’s more like a highway, the buildings might still be quite good as a noise barrier.

If money were no object, I would also tear down all barns and the chicken coop and build on the street on the left side of the plan.

The road is a district road serving the village entrance, therefore regularly used, and the noise protection was exactly the reason why we would like to keep the building.

Unfortunately, money does matter, so I have been pondering for a long time how the property could and should be sensibly developed (in the long term). If it were currently unoccupied, it would probably be easier to demolish buildings…

The street located to the east of the property is a district road, from which access should generally be possible.

And to the northwest, is that also a street? I would try to ensure that, if necessary, two properties can be made out of one. And that is how I would build. Preserving a barn is never wrong. It replaces the expensive carport or provides possibilities for storage. Is there an aerial photo?

And to the northwest, is that also a road? I would try to make two plots out of one in an emergency. And that’s how I would build. Preserving a barn is never wrong. It replaces the expensive carport or provides options for storage. Is there an aerial photo?

To the northwest, there is a paved path that leads to agricultural land / fields. There is significantly less traffic here, only occasionally a tractor. We will definitely include a possible plot division in the planning. You never know what the future holds. Attached are a) an aerial photo and b) an idea of how the house could be positioned. Terrace facing south (boundary development), part of the agricultural land as a substitute garden. Access would still be possible from the district road in the east in case a plot division is necessary. With the positioning, we would initially be as far away from the farmyard as possible and could gradually demolish existing buildings as the required space increases.

Could it be that the outbuilding has suddenly almost doubled in size? And why is the new house now placed in the garden? I thought it would be difficult to get a building permit there and it would also be harder to develop.

Could it be that the outbuilding has suddenly almost doubled in size? And why is the new house now placed in the garden? I thought it would be difficult to get a building permit there and that it would be harder to develop.

The outbuilding has only doubled in aerial perspective. The building has a large roof overhang into the courtyard. The building itself is as large as shown on the original site plan.

The positioning in the garden is to possibly make a subdivision of the property easier. As a suggestion for discussion.
Regarding the permit, I still need to have the boundary between inner and outer area examined in detail to find out if it runs within the property.

As a suggestion for discussion.

Unfortunately, I now lack the idea of how you want to develop this. Can you include paths and access roads?