As of: February 23, 2024, 5:45 p.m
By: Martin Schullerus
Comments
Press
Split
The property at Maria-Eich-Straße 18, on which there is a house with four residential units, has been exposed to highway noise for more than 50 years.
The municipality of Gräfelfing is aiming for noise barriers in this area and would thereby create permanent building rights on the property.
© Dagmar Rutt
A noise barrier for many and valuable building rights for one - or neither?
The Gräfelfingen building committee was now faced with this classic conflict between realpolitik and morality - and decided in favor of the former.
Gräfelfing –
When it comes down to business in Gräfelfing, it is usually about building law, the Holy Grail of Gräfelfing local politics.
This was especially the case when the property at Maria-Eich-Straße 18 was on the agenda on Thursday, which plays a special role in several ways and is becoming a long-running, conflict-ridden topic.
The property is located hard on the edge of the motorway wall at the western tunnel portal and has been exposed to the full roar of the A 96 traffic on six lanes for a good 50 years.
For this reason, the residential building with four residential units only enjoys existing status and is unlikely to be rebuilt due to a lack of “healthy living conditions”, as it is called in official German.
The property is therefore designated as private green space in the development plan.
All that could change now.
As reported, the local council decided in 2021 to build noise protection walls as part of the upcoming tunnel renovation, in a U-shape along the northern and southern noise flanks and on the parapet of the tunnel portal on Maria-Eich-Straße.
The municipality commissioned a sound engineering study to clarify what consequences the noise barrier would have for the property at Maria-Eich-Straße 18.
And lo and behold: With a few contortions such as “structural optimization, alignment of the floor plan, application of architectural measures and passive noise protection precautions” the provisions of the 16th Federal Immission Control Ordinance could be complied with, according to the administration's presentation for the meeting.
"It is therefore considered appropriate to plan this property using a so-called 'postage stamp development plan' and thus to issue a building permit in the event that the noise barrier is actually erected." Residential use remains "inadmissible until the necessary noise barrier is built has been built”.
The background to this very clear combination of noise protection project and building law: For the noise protection wall, Autobahn GmbH, as the developer, needs the consent of the owner of Maria-Eich-Straße 18 because the wall would move directly up to the property boundary.
And approval can only be expected if permanent building rights are created on the property instead of existing protection, said Mayor Peter Köstler and building authority manager Markus Ramsauer.
This situation drove Martin Feldner (Greens) to moral zeal.
Of course it makes sense to create urgently needed living space, said Feldner.
“But we are building a noise barrier at the citizens’ expense and increasing the property value by one million by obtaining building rights” – a figure of more rhetorical value that seemed to be a very rough estimate.
Feldner also didn't forget to mention that the cell phone antenna, which the community has wanted to see dismantled for years, is located on this building (we reported).
In any case, grassland is being turned into building land, and the municipality also paid for the noise insulation study.
There is no evidence of any consideration from the “possessors” (meaning the owner).
Martin Feldner: “What’s in it for the Graefelfingers?”
Mayor Peter Köstler replied: “The Graefelfingers are getting a noise barrier that will benefit several properties in the area.” In addition, the property in question is already built up and inhabited today and is “not a free green space”.
Jörg Scholler (FDP) put his finger in the wound and asked: “What happens if we don’t pass the building law?” That would lead to “very big difficulties” in the negotiations about noise protection, the mayor replied and admitted bluntly: “ We need the owner's consent to build the wall, and the building law is a condition for consent." Martin Feldner's reply: "So we are allowing ourselves to be blackmailed." Walter Frank (CSU) in turn called this a "debate of envy" and stated: " We are creating permanently secure residential development there.”
Mathias Pollok (Garden City Gräfelfing interest group) was also bothered by the “unobjective discussion” and struck a real-political tone.
Pollok: “We have a clear legal situation and there is no alternative to negotiations.
We want to have the noise barrier and have to go this route, even if it is difficult for some people.” Only Martin Feldner voted against the corresponding resolution recommendation to the local council.
Now the plenary session will have to make a decision on Tuesday: realpolitik or morality.