As of: February 26, 2024, 3:00 p.m
By: Bernhard Jepsen
Comments
Press
Split
There is still an old single-family home on the property.
It is to be demolished and replaced with a new building.
© Jepsen
Does the district office apply arbitrary standards in construction matters depending on its taste?
This accusation was now raised in the Peißenberg building committee.
The trigger was an intended construction project at the intersection “Thalacker/Thalackerstrasse”.
This was initially rejected by the district office, but has now been deemed acceptable.
Peißenberg
– It is now the norm: builders and investors try to maximize or exceed existing building windows in their planning.
This is no different for a construction project on the corner of “Thalacker/Thalackerstrasse” in the area of the driveway to “Schweiber”.
An old single-family home is to be demolished and replaced with a new one including a separate apartment and a double garage.
The problem: Due to the intended three-story structure and excavations on the already sloping topography, the building would appear quite powerful and tall compared to the buildings directly surrounding it.
The building committee consequently refused its community consent in September last year because of the height development (the ridge height was 10.23 meters and the wall height was exceeded by around 2.5 meters).
The committee was therefore fully in line with the district administration office, which is responsible for building permits.
Because it is an unplanned interior area, the standard for rejection was Section 34 Paragraph 1 of the Building Code.
The building project must then fit into the surrounding development.
In the present case, the district office came to the conclusion that the building does not fit into the neighborhood.
But now the surprising turnaround: After discussions with the applicant and only a slight change in the plan height (the ridge height is now planned to be 9.88 meters), the district authority signaled its willingness to approve.
Surprising turnaround
How did the change of heart come about?
Contrary to previous practice and without any legal change, the district office has decided - almost on its own initiative - to redefine and expand the term “surrounding development”.
The development on the opposite side of the street should now also be used as a criterion for assessing the inclusion - provided it is not a large, heavily frequented street.
In the specific case of Thalacker, there are buildings of similar height on the eastern side of the street, even if they are lower in the sloping terrain and therefore do not appear as massive.
The district office is now also turning a blind eye to the planned excavation – as part of a “case-by-case decision,” as they say.
The reason given was that the plateau on the property was artificially raised and not of natural origin.
There was a lot of criticism in the building committee about the district office's about-face.
Building authority manager Birgit Thaller spoke of a “precedent” being set.
Many properties along the street would have similar topographical features.
And further building applications must then be decided “identically”.
This would result in excavations essentially making the second residential unit in the basement possible, which could lead to further construction projects with a massive building impact.
There was also sharp criticism from Bernd Schewe (SPD): “For me it doesn’t fit in at all.” The district office applied two different standards one after the other when making its decision on the construction project.
“It's arbitrary and has a flavor,” said Schewe: “The insertion requirement has been handled differently for years.” Jürgen Forstner (Free Voters) also found clear words: “It has a bit of Pippi Longstocking in it: 'I make the world for myself, how I like it'.
“I’m sorry, I can’t understand that.”
Building committee refuses to agree
The building committee narrowly refused its community consent for the construction project.
Forstner voted for the grant.
In terms of content, Forstner judged the district office's about-face to be a "catastrophe" and "pathetic": "In doing so, they quickly undermined the entire building regulations." But rarely any harm, no benefit: Forstner sees the district office's changed attitude as a "huge opportunity for Peißenberg “.
Because now the authority must use a broadly interpreted insertion principle as a benchmark for every construction project.
“I tell them that now every time they plan.
That makes it really easy for us.
“That’s great, you can create living space like that,” explained Forstner with an ironic undertone.
The fact that the committee refused community consent should be nothing more than a statement of opinion.
The district office can replace the consent - and the authority will probably make use of this option in the “Thalacker 101” case.