Dream location, but illegal: Villa with a view of Lake Starnberg is threatened with demolition - because the new owner started the renovation

Created: 05/25/2022, 10:16 am

By: Sandra Sedlmaier

An extension was planned, but now nothing has been approved: A villa on the Schroppenberg in an idyllic location above Leoni has lost its existing protection due to construction work on the roof and statics.

In its judgment, the administrative court followed the assessment of the district building authority.

The client can go to the next instance.

© Dagmar Rutt

There is no building permit for a villa above Leoni.

Due to work on the roof and the statics, the building has forfeited its grandfathering.

He is threatened with demolition.

Leoni

– The residential area on the Schroppenberg above Leoni is wonderful: the lake glitters in the afternoon sun, the leaves of the old beech trees rustle in the wind, accompanied by the singing of the birds.

On the property at Am Schroppenberg 4, on which there is a detached villa in the process of conversion with a floor area of ​​around 100 square meters and a semi-extension of 60 square meters, the view is fabulous.

But the building is no longer allowed to stand there - the building permit has expired due to work on the roof and statics.

This is how the Starnberg district office assessed the situation, and this is how the administrative court, to which the client appealed, sees it too.

Now the client can go to the next instance.

The case has been occupying the Berger municipal council for a long time - and in view of the destruction of millions of euros, it causes horror among the council members.

Starnberger See: Client removes the roof of the villa - grandfathering is lifted

At first everything went smoothly.

The builder applied for an extension to the villa in Leonie, which he also received approval for.

In the summer of last year it turned out that the roof had been removed as part of the work, as had the interior walls and work had been done on the floor slab.

For the Berg building authority and the district building authority, the matter was clear: roof gone, statics impaired - this means that the existing building protection expires.

The district building authority stopped the work.

A new planning application for the entire building was also rejected in February this year.

For the community and district office, the street Am Schroppenberg is outside.

(Our Starnberg newsletter keeps you regularly informed about all the important stories from your region. Register here.)

This was also the view of the Bavarian administrative court, chaired by judge Lafuente Cerdá, which met on site at the end of last week.

The court examined the neighboring houses in detail, obtained information about their development and then stated: "We see no development connection here." The client's lawyer, Dr.

Mathias Schmid, argues.

For him, the villa settlement is a district.

Consequently, the Schroppenberg would then be indoors and the villa could be approved.

Villa am Starnberger See is located on a "sliver of settlement"

The court saw it differently: "This is not a district, but a settlement fragment," said the chairwoman.

The presiding judge also did not want to accept the lawyer's argument that the settlement would not affect public interests.

Schmid said: "It will no longer be a green space, as it is shown in the zoning plan." The presiding judge countered: "The house no longer has a roof, the floor slab has been removed." The latter contradicted the builder's structural engineer.

The client added that the district office had insisted on a uniform roof landscape and had rejected a flat roof for the extension.

That's the only reason they touched the roof.

The judge did not accept that either.

"It's not about selective interventions, that's the risk of the builder," she said, and named another disadvantage in the matter: if the builder had already lived in the house, a different regulation would apply and he could use the old house despite the outside area rebuild.

"But it is a new acquisition." The judge underlined: "You must expect that we will not allow the lawsuit.

You have to try your luck in the next instance.” The following day the verdict was in: the court dismissed the lawsuit.

You can find more current news from the district of Starnberg at Merkur.de/Starnberg.