baugenehmigungsverfahren

/baurecht:baugenehmigungsverfahren

Purpose

The skill reviews the approvability of a construction project under both pillars (building planning law and building regulatory law), assigns the type of procedure under the relevant state building code (Landes-BauO), and prepares the legal remedy strategy (obligation action in the event of refusal; annulment action against burdensome conditions; § 75 VwGO in the event of inaction by the building supervisory authority). It expressly addresses the municipality's requirement of consent (§ 36 BauGB).

Inputs

Federal state (decisive for the LBO)
Location of the property (B-plan available? Inner area? Outlying area?), extract from the B-plan / FNP
Project (type of use, dimension: GRZ/GFZ/BMZ; height; number of parking spaces)
Current procedural status (preliminary building inquiry submitted? Building application filed? Decision available?)
Client's position: building owner (project developer) or authority / municipality
Deadlines (date of application, date of any decision)

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher provides the relevant §§ BauGB / BauNVO / of the respective LBO, case law of the BVerwG 4th Senate (insertion, consideration, outlying area) and commentary passages (Battis/Krautzberger/Löhr; Ernst/Zinkahn/Bielenberg; Jäde/Dirnberger; LBO commentary). Drafter examines substantive admissibility in the style of a legal opinion, assigns the type of procedure and drafts the pleading (obligation or annulment action; § 75 VwGO action for failure to act). Reviewer checks the deadline calendar (§§ 74, 75 VwGO), consent, third-party protective norms (if an adjoining neighbor's action is imminent) and classifies immediate enforcement under § 212a BauGB.

Procedure

1. Concept of project § 29 BauGB

Project = erection, alteration, change of use of structural installations. Preliminary review: Is there even a "project" within the meaning of § 29 BauGB (not in the case of measures without urban development relevance)?

2. Admissibility under building planning law

Branching according to location:

a) Qualified B-plan (§ 30 I BauGB)

Admissible if the project complies with the provisions. Otherwise exemption § 31 II BauGB (basic features of the planning not affected + public interest / hardship / urban development defensible + neighboring interests).

b) De facto inner area (§ 34 BauGB)

§ 34 II BauGB: If the immediate surroundings correspond to one of the BauNVO building areas (§§ 2–11), the admissibility of the type of use is governed solely by the corresponding provisions of the BauNVO (de facto building area); supplementarily § 15 BauNVO (area compatibility / duty of consideration).
§ 34 I BauGB: Otherwise the project must, as to type, dimension, construction method and developable plot area fit in and not impair the local townscape. Standard of "fitting in": BVerwG, judgment of 26.05.1978 – 4 C 9.77, BVerwGE 55, 369 (Krabbenkamp) (https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerwG&Datum=26.05.1978&Aktenzeichen=4+C+9.77).
§ 34 I 2 BauGB: duty of consideration ("healthy living and working conditions"; "not to cause disturbance").

c) Outlying area (§ 35 BauGB)

§ 35 I BauGB: privileged projects (agriculture, location-bound commercial use, public supply, wind energy, etc.) – permissible provided that public interests do not conflict.
§ 35 II BauGB: other projects – permissible only if public interests are not impaired. § 35 III BauGB specifies the public interests (land-use plan designations, nature conservation, protection of the outlying area, harmful environmental effects, among others).

3. Consent of the municipality § 36 BauGB

For projects under §§ 31, 33, 34, 35 BauGB, the consent of the municipality is required. Refusal must be based on urban-development grounds; consent unlawfully refused can, under state law, be replaced . The action is then brought against the district / the building supervisory authority, not directly against the municipality (prevailing view; cf. BVerwG case law [unverifiziert]).

4. Building-code (Landes-BauO) permissibility

To be examined depending on the federal state, as a rule:

setback areas (BayBO Art. 6; BauO NRW § 6; LBO BW § 5, etc.) – third-party protective
fire protection (LBO provisions)
structural stability (static requirements)
parking-space obligation (§ 12 BauNVO + LBO parking-space provisions)
access (driveway, supply)

Researcher note: The exact state of the provisions varies by LBO – the researcher cites the LBO applicable in the mandate case with the provision and the state-law URL.

5. Type of procedure

Varies by LBO, in principle:

Full building-permit procedure – comprehensive review
Simplified procedure – limited scope of review (as a rule building-planning law + selected LBO requirements)
Exemption from permit – within the scope of a qualified B-plan for residential buildings; building documents to be submitted, the municipality can transfer the matter into the procedure
Building notification / project not subject to procedure – certain ancillary facilities, small projects

Building pre-application / preliminary ruling: legal safeguard instrument for individual sub-questions (building-planning law and/or building-code law) before the full application; binding effect for the building supervisory authority as a rule 3 years (LBO-specific).

6. Legal remedies

Constellation	Legal remedy	Deadline
Refusal of building permit	Action for performance § 42 I 2nd alternative VwGO	§ 74 II VwGO, 1 month from notification
Burdening condition of a building permit	Action for annulment § 42 I 1st alternative VwGO	§ 74 I VwGO, 1 month
Building supervisory authority does not decide	Action for failure to act § 75 VwGO	at the earliest 3 months after application, provided there is no sufficient reason
Building-permit recipient against immediate enforcement of a burdening ancillary provision	§ 80 V VwGO	within the time limit for filing an action
urgency in the event of refusal	§ 123 VwGO	–

In objection proceedings (insofar as still provided for under state law), time limits apply accordingly.

Sources and citation style

Binding: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.

Statute

§ 29 BauGB (definition of project)
§ 30 BauGB (B-plan area)
§ 31 BauGB (exception/exemption)
§ 33 BauGB (projects during plan preparation)
§ 34 BauGB (built-up inner area)
§ 35 BauGB (outlying area)
§ 36 BauGB (municipal consent)
§ 212a BauGB (immediate enforcement of building permit)
BauNVO (in particular §§ 2–11 types of area; § 12 parking spaces; § 15 area compatibility; § 16 scale; § 23 buildable area)
§ 42 VwGO, § 74 VwGO, § 75 VwGO, § 80 V VwGO, § 123 VwGO
LBO of the relevant state (BayBO / BauO NRW / LBO BW / HBauO / NBauO / LBauO RP / SächsBO / BbgBO / …) – state law URL

Commentaries

Battis, in: Battis/Krautzberger/Löhr, BauGB, 15th ed. 2022, §§ 29, 34, 35 marginal no. 1 et seq.
Söfker, in: Ernst/Zinkahn/Bielenberg/Krautzberger, BauGB (loose-leaf), § 34 marginal no. 1 et seq., § 35 marginal no. 1 et seq.
Jäde, in: Jäde/Dirnberger, BauGB/BauNVO, 9th ed. 2022, § 34 BauGB marginal no. 1 et seq.
Fickert/Fieseler, BauNVO, 13th ed. 2019, § 15 marginal no. 1 et seq.
LBO commentary of the state concerned (e.g. Simon/Busse, BayBO – Art. 6 setback areas marginal no. 1 et seq.)
Stüer, Bau- und Fachplanungsrecht, 6th ed. 2023, marginal no. 1 et seq.

Case law (`[unverifiziert – prüfen in juris/BeckOnline]`)

BVerwG, judgment of 26.05.1978 – 4 C 9.77, BVerwGE 55, 369 ("Krabbenkamp"; insertion of § 34 BauGB)
BVerwG, judgment of 25.02.1977 – IV C 22.75, BVerwGE 52, 122 (duty of consideration)
BVerwG, judgment of 23.09.1999 – 4 C 6.98, BVerwGE 109, 314 (duty of consideration, concretization)
BVerwG, judgment of 16.03.1995 – 4 C 3.94 (outlying area, public interests)
BVerwG line of case law on unlawfully refused consent under § 36 BauGB

Output format

GUTACHTEN — Baugenehmigung
Vorhaben: <Beschreibung>   Grundstück: <Lage, Bundesland>
Mandant: <Vorhabenträger / Gemeinde / Behörde>

I. Sachverhalt (knapp, mit B-Plan-Auszug / Innen-Außenbereich)

II. Frage(n)

III. Kurzantwort
     - Bauplanungsrechtliche Zulässigkeit: [§ 30 / § 34 / § 35 BauGB – Ergebnis]
     - Bauordnungsrechtliche Zulässigkeit: [LBO – Ergebnis]
     - Einvernehmen Gemeinde: [erteilt / verweigert – rechtmäßig?]
     - Verfahrensart: [volles / vereinfachtes Verfahren / Freistellung]
     - Empfehlung: [Bauvoranfrage / Vollantrag / Verpflichtungsklage / Untätigkeitsklage]

IV. Rechtliche Bewertung
    1. Vorhaben § 29 BauGB
    2. Bauplanungsrechtliche Zulässigkeit
       a) § 30 / § 34 / § 35 BauGB
       b) BauNVO (Art / Maß / Gebietsverträglichkeit)
       c) Befreiung § 31 II BauGB?
    3. Einvernehmen § 36 BauGB
    4. Bauordnungsrechtliche Zulässigkeit nach LBO <Land>
       a) Abstandsflächen
       b) Brandschutz / Standsicherheit
       c) Stellplätze
    5. Verfahrensart nach LBO
    6. Rechtsbehelfsstrategie
       – Verpflichtungs- / Anfechtungsklage § 42 VwGO
       – Untätigkeitsklage § 75 VwGO
       – Eilrechtsschutz § 123 VwGO

V. Schriftsatzentwurf (Antrag, Anträge, Begründung)

VI. Fristen-Box
    – Klagefrist § 74 VwGO (1 Monat ab Bekanntgabe)
    – Untätigkeitsklage § 75 VwGO (3 Monate)
    – Bauvorbescheid Bindung (idR 3 Jahre, LBO-spezifisch)

VII. Risiken / offene Punkte
     <Einstufung mit Begründung>

VIII. Quellenverzeichnis

Example (abridged, legal opinion style)

Facts. M wishes to erect a commercial unit in the district of X (North Rhine-Westphalia) in a de facto mixed-use area as an extension of her existing building. The municipality refuses consent, citing "preservation of the residential character." A qualified B-plan does not exist.

I. § 29 BauGB. Erection of a new building component – project (+).

II. § 34 II BauGB in conjunction with § 6 BauNVO (mixed-use area). The immediate surroundings correspond to an MI. Type of use: commercial enterprises that do not substantially disturb residential use are generally permissible in an MI (§ 6 II No. 4 BauNVO). The specific intensity of disturbance (noise, traffic) must be examined by the standard of the TA Lärm and the duty of consideration under § 15 I 2 BauNVO.

III. Measure. GRZ/GFZ in the immediate vicinity as a benchmark; to be inserted in the sense of § 34 I BauGB.

IV. § 36 BauGB. Consent may be refused only on urban-planning grounds. "Preservation of the residential character" is not a tenable ground in a de facto mixed-use area, provided the area is to be classified as purely MI in type. Recommendation: request to the building supervisory authority to substitute consent (LBO NRW); in the alternative, an action for failure to act after three months have elapsed (§ 75 VwGO).

V. LBO NRW. Setback areas § 6 BauO NRW, parking spaces, fire protection – to be reviewed on the basis of the specific building plans.

Risks / typical errors

Assuming a "de facto building area" across the board, without actually examining the immediate vicinity in urban-planning terms → BVerwG line missed.
Overlooking consent under § 36 BauGB – building permit unlawful without consent.
Concealing § 212a BauGB – the building permit granted is immediately enforceable by operation of law; for third-party challenge, an application under § 80 V in conjunction with § 80a VwGO is required.
A miscellaneous collection of LBO provisions from the wrong federal states cited; the LBO is always tied to the state.
Confusing an action for performance with an action for annulment: refusal of building permit → action for performance; burdensome ancillary provision → action for annulment.
§ 75 VwGO (inaction) brought too early or too late – check the 3-month threshold + sufficient reason.
Misunderstanding a preliminary building inquiry as a "clean bill of health" – binding only for the questions expressly posed.