In their efforts to bring down the renovation and expansion plans of the Pullach chemical company United Initiators by means of a referendum, the association “Protection of the Isar Valley” suffered another setback. The Munich Administrative Court rejected the urgent application for an interim order by decision of November 5. This should oblige the municipality of Pullach not to take any further steps in the controversial construction matter until the court has decided on the action of the association against the non-admission of the citizens’ petition.
While Pullach’s mayor Susanna Tausendfreund (Greens) sees the municipality’s legal opinion confirmed by the 34-page resolution that arrived at the town hall on Wednesday, the camp of the citizens’ initiative is in a hangover mood. “I can’t get out with shaking my head,” said their spokesman, Christoph Boeck, on Thursday. Boeck, who a few days ago was still convinced that the court would allow the urgent application, complained that the court had adopted the argument of the community in full, while it did not address the point of view of his association. He will therefore probably file a complaint against the decision of the administrative court. His fear is now that the community will quickly nail their heads and already pass a resolution in its next meeting on November 22nd. According to Tausendfreund, the next step in the construction management process will be the weighing of the comments received in the local council in spring 2022.
As with many other citizens’ petitions, the administrative court objects to the question in this case, too: “Are you in favor of the Pullach community taking all legally available measures as well as building law and planning law measures in order to (further) expand the chemical company (peroxide) To prevent United Initiators in Pullach? ” Even with a benevolent interpretation, it should remain unclear what exactly is meant by the term “(further) expansion”. It cannot be inferred with sufficient clarity from the formulation of the question whether the referendum refers only to the expansion of production expressly mentioned in the justification, or whether “enlargement / expansion” also means any structural expansion without reference to production, it says in the reasoning of the court. According to his legal opinion, the referendum is likely to violate the prohibition of deception and misleading. Since it wants to oblige the community to take all “legally available as well as building law and planning law measures” that prevent the chemical company from expanding Not able to overlook the effects of the referendum and not be able to assess the main advantages and disadvantages.