The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Demolition of three illegal buildings: decision of the Bavarian Administrative Court is available

2022-06-03T14:45:25.461Z


The Bavarian Administrative Court rejected the client's appeal. The demolition of three black buildings is getting closer.


The Bavarian Administrative Court rejected the client's appeal.

The demolition of three black buildings is getting closer.

Wolfratshausen/Munich – There is definitely no subsequent building permit for the three black buildings on the Isarspitz in the Wolfratshausen district of Weidach: The Bavarian Administrative Court (VGH) has rejected the client's application for approval of an appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court (VG).

The 1st Senate of the VGH decided in the last instance - the lawyer calls it exhaustion of legal channels.

Thus, the VG judgment is final.

Black buildings in Wolfratshausen: decision of the Bavarian Administrative Court is available

As reported, after an on-site visit in June last year, the administrative court came to the conclusion that the deviations from the building permit issued by the district office in Bad Tölz in 2014 were so serious that a completely new permit would have to be issued.

However, the client has “no right” to this, since the three rented single-family houses (Isarspitz 24, 24a and 25) do not comply with public law regulations.

According to the VG, the Geretsrieder “executed a building project other than the approved one”.

The district building authority insists on the demolition of the three houses by October 1 of this year at the latest.

According to District Administrator Josef Niedermaier, "there is nothing that can be reduced to a legal level".

Double garages instead of carports, terrace moved to the east

The client first tried to legalize the so-called tekturs with the help of the administrative court.

However, the 11th Chamber of the Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit after a hearing.

Among other things, "exterior walls, ridge height and roof pitch of the residential building" and "other aspects" of the overall project were changed to a "not inconsiderable extent" contrary to the building permit.

The property was filled before construction began and double garages were built instead of the permitted carports.

In addition, the builder illegally "more than doubled" the terrace area and in one case relocated the terrace to the east side of the building on his own initiative.

In its judgment of June 10, 2021, the Administrative Court stated that the changes should by no means be assessed as "merely insignificant deviations" from the originally approved project.

Our legal opinion is again confirmed.

Marlis Peischer, spokeswoman for the district office

The client was not satisfied with this decision.

He applied to the Bavarian Administrative Court for permission to appeal against the judgment of the first instance.

However, by decision of May 13, the VGH rejected the application.

There are "no serious doubts as to the correctness of the administrative court's assumption" that the builder "has no right to the granting of the desired permits".

The 1st Senate appreciates the "comprehensive assessment" of the Isarspitz dispute by the VG and shares its assessment: that the three houses are "inadmissible under building planning law" is "not seriously doubtful".

You can read all the news from Wolfratshausen here.

"No serious doubts" about the judgment of the administrative court

The decision of the 1st Senate of the Bavarian Administrative Court (VGH), which is available to our newspaper, on the Isarspitz case comprises ten pages.

The decisive sentence can be found on the last page: "With the rejection of the application for approval, the judgment of the administrative court becomes final." That means: The Geretsrieder, who built three single-family houses in the north of Weidach, which according to the building control authority turned out to be illegal buildings, has none Prospect of a subsequent approval of the construction project.


The VGH recapitulates the events on the Isarspitz in detail - especially since 2014: In that year the district office gave the property owner the building permits for the three houses.

The VGH follows the judgment of the administrative court (VG): The deviations from the building permits are so serious that completely new permits have to be applied for.

The plaintiff/builder has now also recognized this fact.

However, there will be no new approvals - according to the Administrative Court, the projects cannot be approved due to "the outdoor location (...).


The VGH states that there are “no serious doubts” about the correctness of the findings of the VG.

Thus, the application "for approval of the appeal is unsuccessful".

After a "comprehensive assessment and the required overall view, the administrative court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff "constructed projects other than those approved".

The 1st Senate of the Bavarian Administrative Court does not have "serious doubts" about the judgment of the Administrative Court that would allow an appeal.

(cce)

For the lower building control authority at the district office, the factual and legal situation does not change as a result of the rejection of the appeal.

On the contrary: "Rather, our legal opinion is confirmed again," says Marlis Peischer, spokeswoman for the district office.

She explains: "By October 1, 2022, the houses should be voluntarily removed as part of the hearing on the disposal order." A formal rejection notice has not yet been issued.

"If the owner has not voluntarily removed it by October 1, the district office can issue a removal order," says Peischer.

Bavarian state government proposes a solution

The decision of the VGH could also influence the decision of the petitions committee of the Bavarian state parliament.

As reported, the 14-member committee has received a complaint from the client about the district office in Bad Tölz.

The Committee for Submissions and Complaints – as it is officially called – is expected to decide on the Geretsrieder's petition in mid-July.

The Bavarian state government was previously asked to comment on the Isarspitz cause.

This is still being kept under lock and key, according to information from our newspaper, the key message is: the hands of state politics are tied, the planning authority for the area in Weidach rests with the municipality.

A conceivable solution model would be for the state government: The city will quickly have a development plan drawn up for the northern plots on the Isarspitz, which are located outside, which could certainly cover a larger area.

In the end, what was forbidden would still be permitted after all.

To date, however, the city council's building committee has categorically rejected this - the same applies to all building applications relating to the properties at Isarspitz 24, 24a and 25.

The fact that three single-family houses were allowed to be built there,

This is what the administrative court says about the required demolition of the houses

With regard to the demolition of the three houses demanded by the district authority, the administrative court emphasized in its reasoning: "The court does not ignore (...) that removing the residential buildings that have already been built and have been rented out in the meantime is likely to involve considerable enforcement effort." But: "Removal does not appear to be completely impossible in fact or in law (...)." According to the Administrative Court, "ultimately the client is hit by the pecuniary disadvantages that he had to reckon with when he started the project without prior planning permission or in spite of previous ones carried out construction cessation."

The client has not yet responded to an e-mail from our newspaper after the rejection of his appeal.

(cce)

Our Wolfratshausen-Geretsried newsletter informs you regularly about all the important stories from your region.

Sign up here.

Source: merkur

All news articles on 2022-06-03

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.