Preliminary Draft of a Development Plan Experiences

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

That is also correct: as at the place where we met earlier ;-) the inclusion statute can also incorporate the relevant area of the previous outer area into a non-planned inner area, hence also the regulation in §34 Building Code (4) 2.

The planning authority here is the municipality, and if they require a development plan, then it is mandatory for you.

However, the planning authority clearly lies with the municipality here, and if they require a development plan, then it is mandatory for you.

But that is not the problem here. Rather, the municipality miscalculated or acted clumsily. They wanted to grant building rights to those willing to build and assumed that a relief from a few years ago authorized them to establish a development plan solely on the basis of a mutual agreement between the municipality and the building plot applicants. In doing so, they overlooked two things: first, that before a redevelopment of an area can take place, it must be established that it actually belongs to the inner area; and second, that the temporary simplification of the development plan establishment procedure (mainly to waive the proof of demand and the balancing against environmental interests) was no longer undisputedly valid. So it is not a matter of the fact that where a building regulation requiring integration would suffice, the municipality insists on a formal development plan area. Rather, the municipality misjudged the situation, thinking they could create building rights more quickly by the actually more cumbersome route. The building citizens and the municipality would gladly pull together here; the opposition lies on the sovereign level between the regulatory competences of municipal self-government and planning law. Therefore, I do agree with the original poster’s hope that the inclusion statute might be the saving path here. The municipality wants to be citizen-friendly; it just also has to be allowed to do so.

Today I finally managed to reach someone, but over the phone the responsible employee of course wouldn't reveal anything. I've now asked him for a statement in writing.

Also, there might be something new regarding §13b Baugesetzbuch. The Google search for "55. Sitzung - Anhörung „Wärme II“" leads to a possible legislative change in this regard. I've also sent this to the building authority employee (he didn't know about it yet). Maybe we can still save a few €.

Of course, all this just drags things out.:rolleyes:

I want to give an update here again and ask for your help. With our development plan, we now had to go through the standard procedure after all, and unfortunately, the whole thing has been dragging on for quite some time. This was mainly because we needed a species protection report and the expert was not getting moving. The report is now available and we will go into the second public participation at the beginning of January. According to the report, an "ecological construction supervision" is required. At the moment, I am still trying to somehow mitigate this and at least include it as a recommended measure only in the development plan, but I fear that won’t work. For the probable case that we have to commission supervision: Are there any requirements for such supervision or can it also be a "regular" architect? Wikipedia only mentions a few loose prerequisites, but obviously, they do not need to be proven anywhere. Otherwise, I haven’t found anything conclusive about who is allowed to offer ecological construction supervision. In any case, it does not seem to be a protected designation?? /edit: I could take such a course online for €650. That would probably be cheaper for me than commissioning someone. I even have knowledge of environmental law from my studies?!

According to the expert report, an "ecological construction supervision" is required. At the moment I am still trying to somehow mitigate this and at least include it in the development plan only as a recommended measure, but I fear this will not work.

For the probable case that we have to commission such supervision: Are there any guidelines for such supervision or can it also be done by a "completely ordinary" architect? Wikipedia only mentions a few loose requirements, which obviously do not have to be proven anywhere. Otherwise, I have not found anything meaningful about who is allowed to offer ecological construction supervision. In any case, it does not seem to be a protected term??

Then, if I were you, I would be glad if the regulation remains as vague as possible and would in no way aim for a specification. Poorly defined is, from a legal point of view (if you are the client), still more favorable than relatively soft but clearly formulated. An explicitly "unspecified competence" no one will write in for you (and it would also be too vulnerable to challenge).

/edit: I could take such an online course for €650. That would probably be cheaper than commissioning someone. I even have knowledge in environmental law from my studies?!

Since you yourself are the party involved, you would also be the natural first candidate for a disputed competence in case of unspecified proof. There are enough architects with a green party membership, which should be sufficient.