Preliminary Draft of a Development Plan Experiences

I seem to remember that there was a temporary relief for the adoption of new development plans, which, however, has already expired some time ago. Could it be that the municipality missed this opportunity, if it was even usable here at all? At least according to my speculation as indicated in post #10, the crux of your case probably lies in expanding the already zoned inner area not into an unzoned inner area (§34 Baugesetzbuch), but into a (previous) outer area (§35). In this respect, I also have slight doubts whether a simplified adoption procedure would have been possible here at all. The regular adoption of a qualified development plan is in any case more complex, both in terms of time and costs.

A simplified development plan according to §13b Baugesetzbuch would basically be possible because the adoption resolution, as required by law, was made before 31.12.2022. However, there is a current ruling from the Federal Administrative Court (for those who want to google: it is press release 59/2023), which fundamentally questions §13b. This ruling is what I meant by the interference.

Thank you very much for your further explanations. It sounds like it will be far more questionable here whether it will work at all. :(

Thank you very much for your further explanations. It sounds like it will be much more questionable here whether it will work at all.

At least it takes longer than expected. I already wrote what leads to the determination of the need. Whether this could be preferably satisfied elsewhere in the municipality, you can see better in the concrete case than I can from a distance.

However, there is a current ruling from the Federal Administrative Court (for those who want to google it: it is press release 59/2023), which basically calls §13b into question.

No, the crucial point is stated right in the introduction: "Open spaces outside the settlement area of a municipality may not be replanned in the accelerated procedure according to § 13b sentence 1 of the Building Code without environmental assessment." I already said, my suspicion is that the problem here is that the scope of the intended development plan area was previously counted as outer area. Then the hurdles are higher, and from my point of view the applicability of the temporary relief is also questionable, and in this case, an on-time resolution does not help.

What do you say now, since you are closer to it, about the concrete situation in your municipality: are there significant known building gaps or similar densification reserves? - then, as said, creating building plots on newly designated narrow parcels in the second row of an existing development plan area or also a §34 area would be addressed as a priority before "your" development area would get a chance. If there are none, I would estimate a total delay of three years until the matter can presumably proceed as in the draft. Basically, it is about schooling local municipality administrations on how to proceed with highly official land development. Not nice, but that’s how it is. Politics in rural areas used to be more straightforward. Back then, Xaver wanted something and Vinzenz had no objection, and if something didn’t go quite cleanly, it cost three Ave Marias and a local round at the fire brigade festival.

I find the topic of inner area statutes interesting. This was not "offered" to us as a solution by our municipality, but after a quick Google search it would probably be worth considering and would likely be significantly cheaper. Here is our case: I have to address this next time... (sorry for off-topic :) )

Yes exactly – strange, I almost remember having already pointed this out to you via eMail or messenger that in my opinion this approach is also applicable in your case (at least just now I actually sent you a source via messenger). A "supplementary statute / inner area statute / inclusion statute / rounding-off statute" would create the prerequisites to make the simplest measure of changing the development plan of your immediate neighborhood – namely both in its scope and in its content, to adopt from the preliminary draft shown here those aspects that have been specified here compared to it.

Thank you. I will try to clarify if there is still a possibility...

Thank you. I'll try to clarify if there is still a possibility...

I don't see why there should be anything against it - it is even a relief. The inclusion statute and then the expansion of the scope of an existing development plan does not require proof of demand as far as I know, unlike the independent development plan initiated here.

A development plan for the adjacent buildings does not exist. According to the link you sent, however, this is not a mandatory requirement.