Although only the first drafts are available so far, the project has the potential to change the market town of Kirchseeon from the ground up: the Hamburg ECE Group wants around 1,500 new apartments for up to 3,000 people in the south of the town on the former railway sleeper site create. It is understandable that a project of this magnitude triggers mixed feelings among the citizens of Kirchseeon. The municipal council does not want to ignore this, which is why it made the fundamental decision for a council request on Monday evening. This should allow the residents to make their own decisions about how to proceed with the 16.5 hectare site.
“The procedure is unprecedented, there was nothing like it in all of Bavaria,” said Mayor Jan Paeplow (CSU) at the meeting, when he vigorously drummed the drum for the council’s request. From the beginning of the planning process, the head of the town hall had repeatedly emphasized how important it was for him to have the greatest possible transparency in this project. Not least because of this, the municipality, together with the investor, has set up several working groups in which the people of Kirchseeon can participate. The first interim results are to be presented at an event in the ATSV hall at the end of next week. “We are here with broad public participation,” says Paeplow, who therefore sees the Council request as a further logical step.
This is what the new Kirchseeon town center could look like according to the investor’s idea.
(Photo: ECE Work & Live/oh)
However, it is not yet clear which question the Kirchseeoners should answer exactly. According to the mayor, this must now be worked out in the coming weeks and months. In any case, it will still be some time before citizens can go to the polls. According to Paeplow, the council request should take place together with the state elections in October. “I believe that this will give us as many voters as possible and get a representative result,” said the mayor. Until then, the people of Kirchseeon would have enough time to form an opinion about the project.
The local councilors present at the meeting did the same – and not all of them were on Paeplow’s line. Susanne Markmiller (FDP), for example, voted against the resolution for a council request. “I’m a bit afraid that we’re getting too committed here,” she said. There are still many questions to be clarified, for example in relation to traffic or what benefit the municipality actually has from the project. She does not fundamentally reject this, nor the idea of a request for advice, “but for me it is not yet the time for a permanent commitment”.
Initially, however, this only means that there will be a request for advice at some point. The municipal council must make a final decision on the same separately, because from this point on the decision must be made within three months. Diana Thalhammer (SPD) also criticized this “double resolution”: “I find it difficult to take the decision to question the citizens without even knowing what I’m going to ask them.” In any case, you cannot agree here.
The Green List, on the other hand, had more positive reactions. “This is such an important decision for the place, you just have to take the citizens with you,” said Natalie Katholing. For Andreas Scherer (CSU), the resolution for a council request also had a “signal effect on the population”, but he also saw it as tactically motivated, because the community wanted to forestall a possible referendum. Meanwhile, Paul Hörl (CSU) saw the council request as an important pointer to the people of Kirchseeon: “People, you decide whether the site should be developed.”
On the way there, the planned Council request will not remain the only hurdle anyway. It is still unclear whether the site, which is heavily contaminated with toxins, can ever be used again in a meaningful way. A positive public vote would therefore give the municipality and the investor a tailwind, but it would still not be a guarantee that the new Kirchseeon town center will actually be built.