Your wishes for a development plan

I agree: as few restrictions as necessary. Of course, the setback distances must be observed. But otherwise? Specification of what can be built (single-family house, multi-family house, row house...), max. height and that's it. One person just does a hip roof and another a flat roof. I don't find pink houses appealing either, but in a neighboring village someone turned their house into a 60s devotional (so with a 60s crest and in 60s blue) – there I can almost get used to pink.

I won't like everything, but better than everything being uniform.

Just think about it: the small villages we find picturesque today were certainly not built according to a given scheme, but have always been different over the centuries. And that's what makes it!

If someone travels through Germany in 200 years, they will still find Rottenburg ob der Tauber beautiful, but probably less so the settlements that were created on the drawing board.

Please more individuality! Also in planning. No grid division of building plots but a mix: large and small building plots, for big and small budgets. Maybe plan a center right away, a village or settlement square, with a fountain where children can splash in summer and people can meet to chat, areas with greenery, not everything paved over.

Perhaps every house with a garden/green area should have its own well drilled, provided the underground allows it, so that valuable drinking water is not used for garden and lawn irrigation.

And now, maybe this is unrealistic: Depending on the square meter size of the property, a certain number of a) old variety fruit trees and b) old variety bushes/plants/flowers. So that they do not fall completely into oblivion. To a small extent, this is, in my opinion, reasonable, and who knows, maybe some people would learn to appreciate the old varieties. They would be preserved in this way, even if they are not commercially usable, and I can imagine that this could develop into a kind of competition.

Well, I know I am putting myself in the line of fire with this: Heat pumps must be installed on the property in such a way that they only disturb the installer, but not the neighbors. (I am aware that this is already somewhat the case, but still too many neighbors are disturbed.)

Perhaps it would also counteract (mutual ;-) ) ghetto formation if single-family houses were mixed with multi-family houses. At the moment, we live in a mixed area, and I will definitely miss it when we move into our new house in the "single-family house zone."

In new development areas, a complete 30 km/h zone. We have that at the moment as well, and it is really great.

Otherwise, I agree with many suggestions from my predecessors.

I would especially insist on a uniform filling ... they didn’t do that with us now the neighbor is 2m below us with his floor slab ... well ... have fun when it rains )-:

What annoyed me the most was when the information was: x from natural terrain ... who is supposed to check afterwards where that once was?

What would you wish for? - what should be included, - what definitely not? - what should be precisely defined, - where should there be more freedom?

First of all, I would wish that the density of regulations would be kept within limits – nobody needs gluttony for regulations (e.g., a front garden planting catalog). Then I would wish to evaluate the latest development plans of the municipality and its neighboring municipalities: the municipal councils are too afraid and try to hermetically formulate all "abused" leeways of the recent past, until in the end everyone is only allowed to rebuild the Nikolaus Mayor’s house. But hardly any municipality looks once at which regulations of the previous new plans were ineffective or even caused the opposite of what was intended. Thirdly, I would wish to omit unnecessary duplications of regulations: a gutter height specification sufficiently determines which "hip height" a house can have. Doubling this with a knee wall restriction is nonsense, since the knee wall restriction only states where (inside the house body, thus irrelevant from the outside) the floor ceiling lies below the gutter height. Fourth, I would wish that the roof requirements in their combination (eaves, ridge, pitch, knee wall) would not effectively prevent mansard roofs. And I could well imagine a "balanced scorecard" to be beneficial: if I did not exhaust the total length of dormers, my garage could be allowed to have more wall height, for example. Because the development plan culture as it has evolved in the last thirty years has led to a contradiction that no one could have seriously wanted: on the one hand, a reduction in species diversity (as with the only four and a half apple varieties left in the supermarket), but unfortunately on the other hand widespread failure to curb the phenomenon of McMansion Hell.

It is very difficult to find a balance between personal freedom and regulations because someone always exploits freedom to the detriment of others.

I think it's good that you want to deal with it. But it's not easy to look beyond your own plate - but practice, as we all know, makes perfect ;)

Definitely no such pointless rules like: "The photovoltaic system may only have a rectangular or square shape." On hipped and tent roofs, that's totally stupid....

I wouldn't limit colors, since that's at most bad taste but doesn't directly affect anyone. I would forbid glossy surfaces, as these can directly disturb the neighbors.

In general, ensure there are employees in the administration who are there for the citizens. Sorry, had to say that now after one of our municipal employees complained for a very long time today about what work my (OK, somewhat special) application would cause.