As of: March 6, 2024, 3:28 p.m
By: Andrea Gräpel
Comments
Press
Split
The topic of tree protection regulations has been passed on again... © IMAGO/Daniel Scharinger
The first meeting of the Herrschinger local council's committee for construction, environment and infrastructure got off to a promisingly constructive start on Monday.
In the end, however, the controversial issue of tree protection regulations was abruptly buried by a point of order.
Herrsching
- Herrsching's local council has been arguing about the issue of tree protection regulations for a year now.
A working group founded for this purpose was dissolved and a council request was declared inadmissible shortly before the decision (we reported).
Most recently, the building committee was laboriously renamed the building, environment and infrastructure committee so that this controversial issue in Herrsching no longer has to be discussed in large groups in the local council.
Anyone who thought the smaller group would deal with this in a more civilized manner was disappointed on Monday.
After initially surprisingly constructive cooperation, it fell apart again due to deadlocked arguments.
Mayor Christian Schiller explained right at the beginning that green design regulations and tree protection cannot be combined.
“This is not legally permissible,” he said, citing Article 81 of the municipal code.
Until then, the combination of the topics in one statute had been the hope of Wolfgang Schneider (SPD) and also the Greens.
They, like Thomas Bader (CSU), did not want a strict regulation that interfered with private rights.
He also emphasized on Monday that the CSU supports tree protection, “but not on the backs of the citizens.”
But he could also live well with a less strict statute.
That's why the committee unanimously agreed to structure the green design statutes in the same way as the parking space statutes: each parliamentary group should set and summarize their priorities so that they can be voted on at a meeting in May.
It should then be decided whether moderation or a more far-reaching regulation for tree protection would be necessary.
For Claudia von Hirschfeld and Christiane Gruber (both BGH), this did not go far enough.
They feared that tree protection would fall by the wayside and called for an additional resolution that would only put the issue of tree protection regulations on hold.
Even with the support of the mayor, the fronts hardened.
Schiller, an avowed opponent of a regulation, saw no need to give in: “The issue of tree protection should be addressed differently,” he said and did not stop until CSU parliamentary group spokesman Bader made a point of order that created facts: “Should the building committee “Continue to deal with a tree protection regulation?” The CSU, SPD, FDP and Schiller voted against it, ensuring a 6:5 majority.
The issue will probably end up back in the local council.
“I assume that the community of citizens will collect the necessary signatures,” said Schiller yesterday in an interview with the Starnberger Merkur.
In order to have a resolution of a committee in the council reviewed, the signatures of six to seven local councilors are required.
Schiller: “I expect that.”
Reactions
Thomas Bader (CSU):
At the beginning we even had a consensus and unanimously decided to go into consultation with the parliamentary groups.
But there was no end to the topic of tree protection regulations, which is why I submitted my application.
Otherwise we wouldn't be finished yet.
I guess the issue will go back to the local council, which will then vote on it again.
One thing is important to us: We do not want any additional requirements for citizens.
Johannes Puntsch (FDP):
It has been shown that you can only work on something together if you speak the same language.
However, two fundamental perspectives stood in the way.
On the one hand, there is the desire to develop a regulation with outside help in order to decide on it in detail afterwards, and on the other hand, there is the general question of whether a tree protection regulation is actually desired.
I am against any regulation that only interferes with private rights.
However, I am very committed to the desired urban green planning.
I see this as the primary task of this committee.
Wolfgang Schneider (SPD):
Unfortunately, exactly what I wanted to avoid with my proposal for a green space statute happened: the discussion got stuck on the word tree protection ordinance and the formalities associated with it.
The decisive factor was certainly once again the legal situation, which does not allow simple tree protection to be included in a statute without specifying centimeters.
At least continued work on the issue of green space was achieved with a large majority.
My news
58 mins ago
The municipality of Tutzing warns: Be careful when buying supposed building plots on Andechser Straßelesen
2 hours ago
Blue light ticker for the Starnberg district: Porsche with flat tires - driver stolen read
2 hours ago
Panting sheep?
Procedure discontinued read
2 hours ago
84-year-old from Herrsching trapped in car in accident
Great security precautions, damaged posters: Strack-Zimmermann in Gautinglesen
Mentally ill man attacks and insults those around him
Christiane Gruber (BGH):
We consider the way in which the issue of tree protection was handled to be unlawful.
After almost a year, the resolutions of April 2023 should finally be implemented and the content of the variants of a tree protection regulation and other measures should be addressed.
We are stunned at how the majority is dealing with the local council's decisions not to deal with applications from citizens after a year's wait, even though the mayor only promised at the last local council meeting that detailed consultation would be carried out.
It is bitter that our concerns, which were originally shared by the Greens, have come true.
Gerd Mulert (Greens):
The topic of green space design statutes and tree protection regulations actually got off to a good start.
Differentiated statements, mutual listening – unfortunately that was rare on this topic.
There was already unanimity and hope that objectivity would finally return to the discussion.
When it came to the issue of a tree protection ordinance again: a scandal - triggered by the CSU with the SPD, FDP and mayor.
Bader's request was an act that was not at all appropriate to the general situation.
In football one would speak of a “hidden foul”.
Of course, we in our group cannot leave it like this.