The Holzkirchner Südspange flashed again briefly in the local council: In a motion, the FWG parliamentary group demands that the remote variant number one - like two other routes - also be examined more deeply in terms of fauna.
But the state building authority in Rosenheim declines.
Holzkirchen
- Mayor Christoph Schmid (CSU) looked surprised.
After all, the state building authority in Rosenheim advised against route number one for nature conservation reasons, and the chances of realization are slim.
Hence, he found that one would "ride a dead horse again."
The southern bypass appeared briefly in the local council.
The background to this was an application in which the FWG parliamentary group asks that the State Building Authority also examine variant one more intensively in terms of faunism.
"We have always advocated a route away from home," added FWG parliamentary group chairman Torsten Hensel.
Because the request was received at short notice, it was not dealt with at the meeting.
Nevertheless, Schmid promised that it would be dealt with.
Holzkirchner Südspange is classified as more urgent than bypassing Großhartpenning
The background: To relieve traffic, Holzkirchen, Großhartpenning and Kurzenberg could have a bypass that connects the B 13 with the B 318.
In the federal traffic route plan, the Holzkirchen bypass is marked as an urgent need until 2030, the two other places are still in need.
A total of 19 proposals for the route were submitted to the State Building Authority.
The authority presented five variants of the feasibility study to the local council in early 2020.
She advised against the first variant because it would probably not be approved for nature conservation reasons.
Option five would only be a bypass for wooden churches - which a large part of the local council rejects.
With variant four there is a risk that the Holzkirchen route will be built first.
What remained were variants two and three, which the CSU parliamentary group welcomed.
These run in the vicinity of the northern edge of the fir wood.
However, according to the study, both routes are “subject to nature conservation law with a high risk of compliance with species protection prohibitions”.
Because there were many questions, the State Building Authority initiated a faunistic investigation into numbers two and three.
The results of these are now available, according to press spokeswoman Ursula Lampe.
"But they have not yet been discussed with the political leadership of the Holzkirchen market town and the other parties involved."
FWG proposal should now also be examined from a faunistic perspective
In its reasoning for the application, the FWG now criticizes the fact that “a faunistic investigation of two possible routes was started without the municipal council having to deal with the documents”.
The first variant proposed by the FWG was not included without further discussion.
Of course you are aware that the building authority advises against the route, but: "A more well-founded and comprehensive basis for decision-making can initially only be a faunistic study with regard to variant one."
This route runs in large areas far from any residential development and causes few conflicts with people in terms of mission technology.
“No noise protection is needed,” explains Hensel.
Since routes two and three are equally critical in terms of nature conservation law, the FWG considers a faunistic study to be appropriate for their desired variant.
They want everyone to “stay on the same test bench,” says Hensel.
Only then should the local council deal with the issue further.
But the state building authority declines.
The planned course of variant one is highly problematic from the point of view of nature conservation, explains Lampe to our newspaper.
"The feasibility study clearly showed that."
According to this, the route runs almost completely - 5.5 kilometers - in an area that harbors a very high or high potential for conflict under nature conservation law.
This is only low at 200 meters.
Since there are other routes that partly or mainly run in the relatively low-conflict corridor of the spatial resistance map, it is to be expected that variant one cannot be approved.
“The state building authority will therefore not have variant one examined more closely in terms of faunism,” emphasized the spokeswoman.
Further information on the subject can be found here.
