Gut Wallenburg and the water protection zone: dispute over cattle drive is settled - district office gives in

The dispute over a cattle drive on Gut Wallenburg has been settled.

District Office and State Public Prosecutor's Office have approved the suspension of the fine proceedings.

Miesbach

- For Kartz von Kameke it was good news just before Christmas: His way to court was worth it - he no longer has to pay the fine of 8,500 euros that the district office received as part of an unapproved cattle drive on the estate Norden Miesbach had imposed on him in March 2018.

The District Office and the State Public Prosecutor's Office had now approved the setting after the hearing at the Miesbach District Court at the end of October.

As reported, the trigger was a cattle drive that the farm manager laid out on the estate in spring 2017.

Since the 250 meter long path for around 80 cows is within the scope of the Egartenlandschaft landscape protection ordinance and in the planned Thalham-Reisach-Gotzing water protection area, approval from the Lower Nature Conservation Authority for the construction was necessary in advance, but this had not been obtained.

As a result, the district office ordered the removal of the path.

Also success before the administrative court

Kameke, on the other hand, successfully sued the Munich Administrative Court.

In May 2019, the presiding judge stated that the landscape protection area ordinance is likely to be ineffective because of the lost protection area map (we reported).

Thereupon the state attorney, who represented the district office, declared that the authority would revoke the decision.

Also read: This is how the dispute over the water protection zone continues

This did not affect the action for a fine, which began in January 2019 before the Miesbach district court and was interrupted because of the main issue at the administrative court.

The trial continued in October.

Witnesses from the Department of Food, Agriculture and Forests in Holzkirchen stated that the route was technically necessary and technically excellent.

At the same time, the questioning of the employee responsible for tree monuments at the Lower Nature Conservation Authority revealed that no damage to the surrounding trees due to the construction of roads could be detected in the protected area.

Continuation or closing line

Due to time constraints, the magistrate Dominik Loos interrupted the hearing and gave the representatives of the authorities the opportunity to consider an attitude.

The accusation was largely untenable, he noted.

This gave those involved a choice: to continue collecting evidence or to discontinue the proceedings.

It was decided to end early.

The fact that the position of the district office did not have the best chance of success at the time of hiring can also be seen from the distribution of costs.

In the present case, instead of a division, the Free State bears the costs of the proceedings.

(ddy)