In a letter to Federal Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer (CSU), the city of Dorfen calls for concrete measures to improve noise protection on the Isental motorway. But the position paper drawn up jointly with two local citizens’ groups is not a desperate petition. The claims are presented confidently and are associated with an extraordinary legal request. The Dorfen lawyer Claudius Siebert has formulated an “application for the declaration of the nullity of a plan change for the new construction of the A 94” for the city. This application is tough and could give the city a legal basis for their claims.
It is about an incomprehensible change of plan that has already been reported several times. In 2015, it was decided to make “changes to noise and immission barriers and the road surface” in the area of seven A 94 bridge structures. The “highly absorbent and light-tight noise and immission protection walls” originally planned in the planning approval decision 2009 have been partially replaced by Plexiglas panes. On the 275-meter-long Lappach Valley Bridge near Dorfen, for example, blue panes were installed throughout instead of brown noise protection walls, which offer much less noise protection. The reason given was that the “design of the bridge structures” would be improved, one would achieve “an appearance that gave a considerably lighter impression”, and “the locking effect of the structures and thus the planning intervention in the landscape was considerably minimized.” As compensation, the road surface will be improved.
Lawyer Siebert tears it apart, piece by piece. He states that neither the appearance nor the road surface has been improved. So the change of plan is nonsense, like the demolition permit for a house that has already been demolished. The change of plan was such a “gross blatant mistake” that it could not apply and therefore had to be recognized as “void”. As a first step, the government of Upper Bavaria has to explain how it sees the matter. That has to happen, says Siebert, by official notification: “One can look forward to the reasoning.” In a second step, however, you could take legal action at the administrative court.
Perhaps the “application for a declaration of invalidity” can be used as a bargaining chip in order to be able to better enforce the demands of the city: the improvements named by the two citizens’ initiatives, such as better and higher noise barriers, closing gaps and increasing noise barriers.
– .
