I have not yet found anything definitive that "secured development" is equivalent to "completed development". If these are indeed two different things, then I conclude that a development could in principle be considered secured before it is completed. Then, according to the building regulations, the issuance of the building permit would also be permissible.
In my opinion, secured development exists when a development provider has committed to carrying out the development; either the municipality by council resolution or a private provider by contract with the municipality. Large landowners quite often do the latter to better sell their building plots, while the municipality says it has no money for it (and sees "no need", e.g. because there are still enough plots to purchase in an already developed building area). One thing often spoils this option for private providers: namely that the municipality usually classifies only the same cronies of the building authority head as "reliable contractors" who would also win the public contract.
I have actually just dealt with a building authority where the (apparently only) employee was ill for a long time. During that time, simply nothing happened, not even the sending of a brief three-liner.
Really? – Is the mentioned municipal building authority originally responsible for this or only a preliminary decision-maker for the district authority?
Why is it that one can only write private messages here after having written enough posts...
If you wait for 99 more posts, you will be able to ask the admin that – but then he will only answer that he does not discuss rules. For this reason, unfortunately this forum must also do without the pale lilac floor plans (and the gray house models with the wooden frames in the window reveals) from Katja :-(