In earlier times, a clear view of the surroundings was vital for the lord of the castle: if you noticed approaching robber barons, rebellious farmers or gangs of robbers too late, it could quickly be the end of your life as lord of the castle. But even today, the unobstructed view of the landscape is very important for castle owners – as a case from the municipality of Emmering shows.
There, more precisely in the district of Hirschbichl, the Munich administrative court had now come to an inspection including a hearing. The owners of the castle there complained because the district office had approved a barbecue area for the neighbors. According to the plaintiffs, this disturbs the line of sight of the listed castle and is therefore a violation of monument protection.
The castle is surrounded by dense vegetation
The stone or stones of contention is a paved area on the property west of the castle, surrounded by a low wall. There is also a brick barbecue. There are more than 50 meters as the crow flies between this free seat, as it is officially called, and the castle, and there is also a dense row of trees in between.
Hirschbichl Castle is located on a wooded hill and is well grown.
(Photo: Peter Hinz-Rosin)
The district office therefore had no concerns when the owner of the property below the castle applied for the barbecue area. On the one hand, such projects do not require approval, on the other hand, a kind of wooden gazebo had previously stood in its place. However, the district office referred to possible conflicts with monument protection, but these were denied by the responsible specialist authority.
Not so from the castle owners. The plaintiff pointed out that there were already “many small buildings” in the area that blocked the line of sight of the listed building, so at least one should remain free on the side on which the barbecue area is located. In addition, according to the plaintiff, she fears for the safety of the castle: the grill and a fire bowl set up on the square posed a fire hazard.
The court does not see any impairment of monument protection through the barbecue area
At least this argument is irrelevant in the current hearing, the presiding judge, Korbinian Heinzeller, made clear, “I have to disappoint you there”. The lawsuit was finally filed with reference to monument protection, so you can’t suddenly negotiate about fire protection. If the castle owner wanted this, she would have to file another lawsuit – which the chairman made clear, but he would not advise.
And after a brief consultation, the chamber also assessed the prospects for the monument protection issue as “not promising”. Which is probably also due to the result of the inspection: the defendant’s barbecue area can only be seen from one part of the plaintiff’s property, at the very edge of the hill on which the castle stands. Of course, according to Heinzeller, one can understand when someone looks from their own property at that of their neighbors and asks themselves in the face of buildings such as a barbecue area: “Does that have to be?” However, this is by no means sufficient to prohibit the barbecue area.
The lawyer for the plaintiffs also admitted that an extension to fire protection was not possible – but he expressed another concern of the castle owners: the salami tactics. It is feared that the barbecue area could only have been the beginning and that it could be expanded with a glass roof, a windbreak or spotlights.
A new lawsuit is not unlikely
However, the neighbor had already rejected such expansions in a statement before the hearing, which she did again during the hearing: “What is not, will not come.” They are not planning a roof or a power connection for the barbecue area. She would also like to dictate this officially in the protocol of the negotiations. Under these conditions, the lawsuit could be withdrawn, the lawyer explained after brief consultation with his client.
This means that the procedure is over, but it cannot be ruled out that a chamber of the administrative court will have to negotiate again in a few months on the matter of the barbecue area versus the castle. When the lawsuit was withdrawn, the castle owner declared in almost the same breath that the next step would be “to seek approval for the fireplace” – i.e. to ask the responsible authorities whether this was objectionable in terms of fire protection law. Neither the court nor the district office staff present wanted to comment on the chances of success of a lawsuit that might result from this – the authority did, however, point out that barbecue areas of less than one square meter in size are generally not permitted.