District Office takes a stand: "Not arbitrary, but applied nature conservation"

Many people jump aside Siegfried Moser in the fight for the Brucker Hof.

But the district office wants to remain tough - and has once again presented its point of view in detail.

Urspring

- The excitement surrounding Siegfried Moser and the Brucker Hof is great.

Many people take the side of the 82-year-old, who set up a farm in the outskirts of the municipality of Steingaden, near Urspring, and has lived there for several years.

The latter was never approved.

In addition, the Maschinenstadl does not meet the requirements placed on agricultural buildings that do not require a permit.

The Weilheim-Schongau district office is therefore calling for the two buildings to be demolished, but is now facing a lot of headwind.

In a statement, press spokesman Hans Rehbehn presented the authority's reasons again in more detail than before.

For the district administration it is obvious that Moser “was aware that he had violated existing building law with his continued construction work”.

He was a successful entrepreneur, had already built another farm and had submitted several building applications.

“There is no doubt that a building owner should find out more before starting construction,” Rehbehn affirmed.

Moser did not comply with applicable law

Moser himself reported to the local newspaper that he was told when planning the Maschinenstadl in 2008 that he could build up to 100 square meters without a permit. Rehbehn confirms this. "However, the freedom of approval does not exempt you from complying with the law," says the press spokesman. Moser built 110 square meters. On top of that, the barn should have been free-standing - but it is directly connected to the suckler cow stable.

The district office also remains tough on the works manager's apartment.

The facts coincide with Moser and Rehbehn: The building application was rejected, and at an on-site appointment with the administrative court, it was proposed to tolerate the condition of the provisional accommodation.

But Moser continued to build on two floors and around 120 square meters of space.

"With this approach, there can be no question of an accidental violation of the building laws."

+

The Brucker Hof 2021: On the left you can see the existing building in which the 82-year-old now lives.

On the right is the Maschinenstadl, both buildings are connected by the suckler cow barn.

© Herold

The district office of the residential building is no longer assuming an old building, but a new building. The district office writes that the building used to be a field barn with marginal masonry that has been significantly rebuilt. Moser had vehemently contradicted this depiction in the past and, as proof, even scratched the plaster from the walls at one point to show the substance. The authorities are not convinced, they refer to images from 2005 on which the house can be seen.

The press spokesman also justified the tough crackdown by the district office with the location of the courtyard.

"The situation in the nature reserve on the Lech is more than sensitive," he writes.

“That is why our intervention is not to be understood as arbitrary by the authorities, but as applied nature conservation.” Rehbehn does not deny that agriculture in itself is environmentally friendly.

In his eyes, cattle breeding with up to 40 animals is not an “existentially necessary business”, but Moser's hobby.

Whether he is “economically dependent on it seems questionable”.

He could keep the business, but without an apartment and machine shop.

For Moser it is difficult to imagine - he would like to be able to park his vehicles and live close to his animals.

District office suspects economic interests

The fact that the 82-year-old was looking for buyers a few years ago suggests, according to the district office, “the assumption that there are more economic interests”. Rehbehn believes that these should not be the basis for the “subsequent legalization of illegal buildings”. Moser had told the local newspaper about the planned sale. That should happen in a few years - and only to farmers. The potential buyers asked the authorities whether they had all the permits - the District Office then took action and scrutinized the farm. The sale fell through. Moser is now fighting to keep the property.

The district office obviously sees no possibility for a concession. It is the wrong signal "when builders with black buildings that are illegal for good reason achieve their goal by simply presenting the general public with a fait accompli". KATRIN KLEINSCHMIDT