Dettelbach bans “gardens of horror” in the future

The motion under item seven reads unwieldy: "motion to specify design requirements in development plans with regard to undeveloped areas of developed land". One of the sentences that do not become clearer even after reading three times.

The actual proposal by eva-maria weimann (SPD) goes like this: "land that cannot be built on, as well as land that can be built on but not built on, is to be landscaped and maintained". The creation and covering of flat areas to be landscaped with mineral materials (gravel, armourstone, etc.) is an important part of the project.) or plastic is excluded – except for roads and driveways."

To put it simply: in dettelbach there should no longer be a complete gravel garden. This applies to future tree removals. Those who already have a gravel garden enjoy protection of existence. The dettelbach city council agreed in principle at its meeting on monday evening. Nevertheless, there was initially a rough discussion about when it is too much. Must not be decided individually according to the coarseness of the stone surfaces? Is it really possible to prohibit in general if someone wants to have stones in his garden??

Exact definition is missing

The 17 city councillors did not find an exact definition either. But what is commonly understood by a gravel garden will no longer be so in the future. Especially since there are now probably already some examples with up to 500 square meters of gravel in the front garden on site. The CSU, meanwhile, resented the "flat cover", raimund sauer preferred "coarse-flat" which, from its point of view, had made more room for maneuver possible. However, a motion to that effect failed by a vote of 6 to 11.

After that, the original motion was voted on and passed with 14:3 votes. So it is clear: the stoneworts have done away with dettelbach. When it comes to drawing up and amending development plans, these often become "gardens of horror" the garden that has been mercilessly gravelled over will therefore no longer be allowed. Anja heinisch (freie wahler), for example, concluded that this was ultimately a contribution to the protection of species and the environment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *