Rejected preliminary building request: Renovation and remodeling now?

Hello everyone.

I submitted a preliminary building inquiry to my responsible district office and it has now been rejected. It concerns an inner area in a village without a valid development plan (keyword: densification of the village). It is a large property with a farmhouse and an adjacent barn (built: 1920). Now the legal situation is as follows: demolition of the farmhouse and construction of a new single-family house was rejected according to the preliminary building inquiry because there are still more or less active livestock farms in the vicinity (emission protection), living in this farmhouse, on the other hand, is legally possible without any problem, which nobody understands!?!?!? But anyway.

The question that now arises for us is: can it be converted/extended instead? And above all, to what extent with prospects of approval? I want to demolish/extend as much as possible. Is a basement, for example, even possible then?

Maybe someone has experience with such or similar cases.

Thank you very much in advance.

Daniel

Your case is very special and requires extensive detailed knowledge, as only your bauvorlageberechtigter Entwurfsverfasser has. If you do not want to sue the building permit authority, your only option is to negotiate approval-capable plans with the authority together with the Entwurfsverfasser.

If you are interested in the assessment of an uninvolved audience, you cannot avoid revealing as much information as possible about your project here, at least the site plan for the preliminary building inquiry with the representation and use of the neighboring buildings and the exact wording of the justification for the rejection.

Thank you for the quick response.

In the building preliminary inquiry that I submitted myself, it was only about the demolition of a farmhouse and the construction of a new single-family house without any plans for the floor plan. But due to the farms in the surrounding area, this is not possible according to emissions protection. Reason: odor exposure frequency >25%, ....values thus exceeded and therefore opposed to residential development.
So it is purely about the emission. It annoys me so much that I am allowed to live in the old house but not allowed to build a new one to live in it.

"How much remodeling is not a new build" is probably the question here.
I will probably have to involve an architect and a building expert on site to clarify the question.
The plan now is to convert and renovate the barn into a residential house and demolish parts of the farmhouse.

The purchase of the property depends on the feasibility of the project.

Is this fundamentally conceivable from a distance?

Reason: odor hour frequency >25%

I have to pass on this, as it is not about the usual planning or building regulatory issues.

"How much remodeling is not new construction" is probably the question here.

If an analogy to building in the outer area is applicable here, your plan would probably not be feasible.

The plan now is to convert the barn into a residential house and renovate it, and to demolish parts of the farmhouse.

That would be a change of use that should accordingly be rejected.

Demolition of the farmhouse and construction of a new single-family house was rejected according to the building inquiry because there are still more or less active livestock farms in the vicinity (emission protection), whereas living in this farmhouse is legally possible without any problem, which no one understands!?!?!?

From this perspective, that sounds idiotic. Surely there are other perspectives as well – such as a vested rights protection that is given greater weight and does not apply to a new property.