In the dispute over the conversion and expansion plans for the United Initiators chemical plant in Pullach, the legal supervision of the Munich district office and the administrative court will probably decide. In the urgently scheduled meeting of the holiday committee on Monday, the majority of the nine-member body decided to withdraw the municipal council’s approval of July 26 for the approval of the citizens’ petition and to suspend further steps for the council’s petition, which had also already been decided. The October 23rd date for a referendum has thus become obsolete.
How things will continue in this increasingly complicated and muddled situation is uncertain. What is certain is that the legal supervision of the district office is now looking at what is happening in Pullach with both eyes and has instructed the municipality to send you detailed minutes of the meeting on Tuesday, which happened at 0.30 a.m., as the deputy mayor and Session leader Andreas Most (Pullach plus) said on Tuesday.
The fact that the members of the holiday committee were invited to the meeting at very short notice is firstly due to the three-month deadline for the citizens’ petition and the resulting time pressure on the municipality to issue the print order for the election documents in good time. But it is even more due to the fact that since the municipal council’s decision of July 26, events have literally rolled over. For example, the citizens’ initiative against the expansion of the chemical plant has now submitted an application to the Bavarian administrative court for a temporary injunction against the council’s request and has also announced that it will be suing the main issue against the council’s request. In addition, United Initiators has filed a legal complaint with the district office of Munich against the admissibility of the citizens’ request. The authority has asked both the citizens’ initiative and the town hall to submit a statement on the reasons for their requests.
Against the background of the fact that the municipal council had voted in its July session for the approval of the citizens’ initiative, although according to legal experts it could actually have been rejected due to gross defects, Cornelia Zechmeister (WIP) was disappointed by the actions of the citizens’ initiative against the request for advice. She was sad, but also angry about it. On the other hand, Christine Eisenmann (CSU) said that being offended was not appropriate and that a legal review of the admissibility of the Council request was a good right for the citizens’ initiative. She, her husband and parliamentary group colleague Uwe Eisenmann and Angelika Metz (WIP) unsuccessfully voted against the withdrawal of the July decision.
“We are now in the situation we wanted to avoid, namely that the building management procedure is being clarified in court.”
“We are now in the situation that we wanted to avoid, namely that the building management procedure is being clarified by courts,” said Renate Grasse (Greens), but the situation has changed completely. Holger Ptacek (SPD) emphasized that the legal supervisory authority had confirmed the illegality of the citizens’ initiative and that this was the responsibility of the citizens’ initiative.
Agenda spokesman Peter Kloeber recalled the thousands of signatures collected by the citizens’ initiative and that the justification for the citizens’ request had remained unchanged since the positive decision in July. “Now suddenly it’s supposed to be invalid just because of the statement?” he asked the group. Most then said that the basis for the admissibility of the citizen’s request in conjunction with the council’s request was not lifted because of the statement, but because of the complaint by the citizens’ initiative against the council’s request. Its spokesman Christian Boeck said the initiative was not against the council’s request, but that he demanded the same right as the municipality to have misleading points in the council’s request examined by a court. He sees no equal opportunities for the citizens’ initiative, partly because their opinion has not yet been published by the municipality.