As of: March 15, 2024, 7:01 a.m
By: Stefan Weinzierl
Comments
Press
Split
The trucks have been driving to and from the gravel pit again since mid-January.
© SW
The gravel mining in Höhenkirchen-Siegertsbrunn continues: The court has overturned the ban on mining - to the chagrin of many citizens.
Höhenkirchen-Siegertsbrunn - The gravel pit near the Muna site in Siegertsbrunn has resumed operations - despite all the efforts of the opponents.
They want to continue to fight against gravel mining - and are pinning their hopes on groundwater protection, among other things.
The peace and quiet on their own terrace lasted just over half a year for Karin and Hanns Christian Luibl.
In June last year, the Munich Administrative Court granted an urgent application by the couple against the district office's approval for gravel mining and stopped it (we reported).
From the court's point of view, it could not be precisely proven at the time that the Luibls were not threatened with any harmful environmental impacts due to noise as a result of gravel mining.
The access to the gravel pit is just a few meters from the Luibls' garden.
The couple who live at the gravel pit continue to hope for justice
But since mid-January, the trucks have been driving to and from the gravel pit again.
“By decision of the Munich Administrative Court on December 7, 2023, residents’ urgent application against the excavation permit was revoked,” the district office said.
The Administrative Court came to the conclusion that the noise pollution was not unacceptably high and that gravel mining was therefore permissible.
Probably also because the entrepreneur who wants to excavate the gravel there had readjusted the noise protection again.
According to the Luibls, the gravel trucks no longer leave as early as before the mining stop.
There are also slightly fewer trips than before, says Karin Luibl.
And the trucks are no longer quite as loud as they used to be.
“They are still too loud and too many for us,” she says, thinking back wistfully to the time without gravel trucks.
The couple, who run their stonemasonry business next to their own house, don't want to give up hope that they won't be able to stop the gravel mining on their own doorstep.
“We continue to hope for the courts and wait to see what comes out of the next decisions,” says Karin Luibl.
Citizen Erika Hoffmann wants to stop mining
Aside from the legal wrangling, Siegertsbrunner Erika Hoffmann is trying to stop gravel mining on the Muna site.
The 85-year-old wants to influence politics.
With the support of Hohenbrunner Mayor Stefan Straßmair, who does not want the gravel trucks to drive through his community, Hoffmann wrote a petition to the Bavarian state parliament in autumn 2022 - partly with success.
In the summer of 2023, the environmental committee of the Bavarian state parliament called on the state government to revoke the excavation permit issued by the district office in a unanimous decision.
However, the requirement has not yet been met.
But that doesn't stop Hoffmann from continuing to look for allies in the fight against the gravel pit.
She is trying to win over medium-sized businesses to her cause; the bold pensioner has also contacted the Bavarian State Ministry for Environmental and Consumer Protection and other ministries.
And even Angelika Niebler, a member of the European Parliament, has known since the CSU New Year's reception in Höhenkirchen-Siegertsbrunn a few weeks ago where Hoffmann's problems are when it comes to gravel mining.
“She said she would see what she could do,” says Hoffmann.
However, one hope has already been dashed.
On December 20 last year, the Munich Administrative Court rejected another urgent application from the Federal Nature Conservation Association to stop excavation.
Attorney Thomas Jäger from the Würzburg law firm Baumann Rechtsanwälte, who represents both the Luibls and the Federation for Nature Conservation, has now filed a complaint against this decision with the Bavarian Administrative Court.
As Jäger explains, in the urgent proceedings at the administrative court it was stated, among other things, that the district office's approval notice cannot ensure that the groundwater levels are continuously checked from the start of gravel mining.
However, the review is necessary to ensure that the groundwater is not only endangered by excavation that is too deep.
My news
Costs have doubled: District wants to use school companions more efficiently - negotiation with special needs schools
In the middle of the night: Man threatens 42-year-old at Unterhaching train station with knife and demands money reading
“Far too massive”: Mayor is the only one to vote against residential construction at the Unterhachinglesen outdoor pool
Thieves steal rescue spreaders from the volunteer fire department
1 hour ago
Isartrails: Finally cycling on official routes - the city and district are investing 2.7 million euros
Even if it needles and disturbs you: This sequoia tree must not be felled
The entrepreneur himself does not want to comment on the legal disputes
According to Jäger, the district office provides for three measuring points from the start in a side provision of the controversial approval notice for regular groundwater level measurement.
“But they were demonstrably not built,” says the lawyer.
At the beginning of gravel mining there was only one groundwater measuring point.
A domestic water well has now been built, which, according to the district office, is also suitable for determining the water level.
However, the third specified measuring point is still missing.
The question arises as to why the district office still tolerates gravel mining.
The district office did not provide a concrete answer to a corresponding Merkur inquiry about the measuring points.
“The excavation permit contains a differentiated regulatory regime regarding the monitoring of the groundwater level with regard to the excavation and backfilling phase,” the authority says.
And further: “As part of the monitoring, the district office checks compliance and – as generally – follows up on information about this.
However, we ask for your understanding that during the ongoing proceedings we will not comment on content that is also the subject of the administrative court proceedings.” The entrepreneur himself also does not want to comment on the legal disputes.