District Administrator Robert Niedergesäß was clear: The 10-H rule has been set for him – after all, the district council has agreed on it and it applies as the basis for the citizens’ dialogue. Of course, the district administrator cannot and should not simply ignore a decision that was once made. But it would be possible to deal with the topic again in the committee and to reassess it. And that is exactly what would be required.
Because TU Professor Sören Schöbel-Rutschmann was also clear: The designation of a zone in a landscape protection area (LSG) in which wind turbines would be possible must result exclusively from the purpose of such a LSG and nature conservation. Distance rules, such as the 10-H rule, are expressly not included. In addition, with the zoning presented, 10-H would only make three wind turbines possible instead of the maximum five specified in the referendum – i.e. 60 instead of 100 percent.
The district council’s milestone plan from 2017 also clearly speaks against 10-H. At that time there was even talk of the fact that 33 wind turbines should be possible in the district by 2030 – that would be roughly necessary if the district wanted to be free of fossil fuels and other finite energy sources for electricity generation by then, as the district council decided in 2006. Only: where should they all go if only three could be realized in the forest? Achieving the set goals would become more and more unrealistic.
It seems as if the district administrator wants to avoid a confrontation with possible critical voices – and therefore feels more secure behind the political decision made almost two years ago. But as Schöbel-Rutschmann rightly said, the 10-H rule would almost certainly be overturned by the administrative court if it were applied. Then the district would be back with five possible wind turbines in the currently designated zone in the forest. The difference: the detour via the court eats up time. Precious time.