Füssen - How should the city deal with building applications that affect the old town?
A discussion about this has now flared up in the Füssen building committee.
The fact that the city administration forwarded four building applications relating to the old town in the permit exemption procedure without discussing them beforehand in the building committee has now met with sharp criticism from Magnus Peresson (UBL), Dr.
Martin Metzger (BfF) and Dr.
Christoph Böhm (CSU).
Because for them it was about monument protection.
Specifically, it was about four balconies that applicants want to add to their apartments in the Hanfwerkesiedlung.
Dr.
Christoph Böhm (CSU) pointed out that there was a black building in the area that was twice as wide as allowed.
"That mustn't be the template (for the new building applications - editor's note)!"
I am in favor of a somewhat stricter handling in such things "
Magnus Peresson, UBL City Councilor
He was not at all, dismissed Andreas Linder from the municipal building authority.
CSU City Councilor Christoph Weisenbach knew that the balconies at numerous other houses in the street were approved.
"They look the same."
"I am in favor of a somewhat stricter approach to things like this," said Magnus Peresson (UBL).
The building committee has never discussed these balconies.
The hemp plant settlement is a unique ensemble.
“You have to watch out for that.
That is what the building committee is there to watch over such things, ”appealed Peresson.
After all, a lot of bad things happened in Füssen in the past when it came to historical buildings.
"I think our hands are tied," said Weisenbach.
"The Bavarian State Office for Monument Preservation has approved the balconies in the area."
Dr.
Martin Metzger (BfF).
The administration should have simply informed that the building application had been coordinated with the monument protection authorities.
"Then we would not have had the whole discussion." Because it was also important to him that no historical buildings are disguised.
With such applications, he therefore advocates the motto: "As long as the monument protection does not agree, I will not agree."
Wrong approach?
However, this contradicts the normal procedure, explained Linder and Chief Executive Officer Peter Hartl.
Before the building committee meetings, the city administration discusses the agenda with the Ostallgäu district office.
It will be clarified which authority has to check what.
“But the preservation of monuments is not present at this preliminary meeting,” says Linder.
The latter can give a rough assessment in advance, but only properly examine the application once it has been received by her.
And in the end, that's just a recommendation.
Because: "The Ostallgäu district office ultimately decides," Hartl emphasized.
For Peresson, however, that was the wrong approach, as he explained.
The monument protection should check the application beforehand so that the local politicians can make a well-informed decision.
But that was “unthinkable due to the technical process,” said Hartl.
Advice in the committee
Perhaps one could clarify these things by inviting the district builder to a meeting of the committee, suggested Ilona Deckwerth (SPD).
Since monument protection and quality of life meet in this specific case, they cannot support the fact that no balconies are built here.
These should, however, be subordinate to the overall building.
CSU City Councilor Böhm spoke out in favor of another compromise.
He demanded that applications relating to the protection of monuments and the old town statutes should not simply be forwarded by the administration to the district office, but should be presented to the building committee beforehand.
That is not possible anyway if there is a corresponding decision, said Böhm and referred to statements from the district office.
