Supporters and opponents of the planned wind turbines in the Ebersberg Forest agree on one point: nature is an asset that is particularly worthy of protection. In all other questions, however, the opinions of both parties are diametrically opposed – which in turn can be seen in the example of nature that is worthy of protection. The critics of the wind turbines would like to preserve the forest as a whole, while the advocates argue that the environment benefits so much from climate-friendly energy production that parts of the forest area can also be sacrificed for it. These two positions clashed once again at the most recent meeting of the district and strategy committee, the occasion being the protection of the environment.
This applies to the Ebersberger Forest as a landscape protection area in a very special way. The construction of wind turbines is therefore linked to several strict conditions, one of which is now no longer applicable: As the federal government decided in its summer package, wind turbines are no longer prohibited in landscape protection areas (LSG). A change in the LSG ordinance for the Ebersberg forest – so that up to five systems can also be built there from a purely legal point of view – is therefore no longer necessary. This is where the proponents and opponents of the project come into play again. While the majority of the former, in the form of the district and strategy committee, have now decided to cancel the amendment to the ordinance, the critics see it as a free pass for any outrage in the Ebersberg forest area.
The committee decides to cancel the planned change to the LSG regulation
Bernhard Winter has always been one of the loudest voices rejecting the wind turbines in the forest. In the most recent committee meeting, the former mayor of Markt Schwaben, who was present as a guest, sharply criticized the fact that the process of changing the LSG regulation should be called off. It was already clear before the meeting that the committee would agree on this step. The Environment Committee had already made the same decision – albeit with reservations at the time – two weeks ago. Winter now complained that this decision could also eliminate the accompanying environmental assessment. “Do we really want to simply ignore the valuable and objective information in the present environmental report, which we ordered and paid for?” he asked the district councillors. According to Winter, if the environmental impact assessment were dispensed with, “the train that was put on the track could simply keep rolling, even faster and more uncontrolled than previously foreseen, right into the middle of our forest”.
However, District Administrator Robert Niedergesäß (CSU) made it clear that no uncontrolled train would roll into the Ebersberger Forest. An environmental impact assessment must take place in any case, just like the special species protection assessment. Only the strategic environmental assessment could be omitted under the new legislation. “We will take great care of our protected assets,” assured Niedergesäß.
The Bavarian state government unexpectedly plays the critics into the cards
But that’s not enough for the critics of the wind turbines, they advocate a location outside of the Eberberg Forest – and are now receiving unexpected support from the Bavarian state government. At the beginning of July, they presented a draft law according to which the 10-hour distance rule for wind turbines in Bavaria can also be suspended in individual cases. “What is new and clear is that we now have many other options as locations for wind turbines,” said Bernhard Winter. “We really don’t have to hurt the unique ecosystem of our Ebersberg forest.”
AfD district councilor Manfred Schmidt took the same line, who said in view of the changed framework conditions that the Ebersbergers had voted in the referendum under the wrong conditions. Certainly, according to Schmidt, a whole number only voted for the wind turbines in the forest because 10H prevented the construction of the turbines everywhere else. “But that’s completely softened now.” Waltraud Gruber (Greens) took up the same argument, but with a completely different aim. Your parliamentary group had proposed that 10H should no longer apply to the planned systems in the forest. The legal framework had changed in the meantime and we now have to face up to it. “We are not tied to 10H,” said Gruber.
The Greens now consider the referendum to be “counterproductive”
However, Robert Niedergesäß and the majority on the board saw things differently. “I’m basically not a 10-H fan, but that’s the basis of my business,” said the district administrator, referring to the referendum that took place when the distance regulation was still indisputably in force. Waltraud Gruber countered that Ebersberger’s vote was now “rather counterproductive”. “If we didn’t have a referendum, we could just plan now.”
However, because the committee rejected the Greens’ application, the 10-H rule in the forest will remain in place for the time being. However, the district politicians stopped the change in the LSG regulation. Only AfD man Schmidt voted to continue planning despite the amended federal law. The district council still has to approve this decision at its meeting next Monday.