Endangered biodiversity: City responds to left-wing application for animal-supported design with official persistence ⋆ News from Leipzig

Rethinking is difficult. Processes need to change, planners need to pay attention to things they have not been interested in for decades – bushes, tree groups and small biotopes, for example, on fallow land that has become building sites as the city has grown. . In the past, everything was flattened here before construction began. But this is no longer possible in times of massive species loss, the left-wing faction in Leipzig’s city council had complained.

“Leipzig is a growing city. It is popular with students, artists, scientists, locals and also with large and small businesses. In order to meet the need for new schools, day care centers, hospitals, apartments and businesses, construction has to be done. As a result, vacant lots have become a rarity.”

“Private investors speculate on land and buildings, and in the hope of large profits, modernization and renovation are carried out at a rapid pace,” the left-wing faction described the problem in their application, in which they promoted the “Animal-Supported Design” planning approach for all urban construction. requested.

In the title of the application, a very child-friendly “Home for Maya the Bee and Karl Beetle” is mentioned.

Because: “While Leipzig is growing, the natural retreats for wild animal species are shrinking. Many species of insects feed on the flowers found on fallow soil. Birds that nest in buildings raise their offspring in cracks and crevices in unrenovated buildings. The planning method Animal Aided Design (AAD) has been developed to preserve and create living spaces in the city without fundamentally preventing modernization and renovation or new construction. It ensures that the habitat requirements of the wild animal species that occur are determined and integrated into the planning,’ says the left-wing faction’s application.

And it would have been discussed long ago in the decision on the development plan for Parkstadt Dösen.

Parkstadt dozes like a role model

“Specific profiles were drawn up for different species such as the green woodpecker, the dark-fringed bee and the burnt blue, and elements were developed to meet their needs. This species protection concept was then included in the urban development contract and approved by the city council,” said the left-wing faction.

“The bumble bee now finds food in specially sown sots and builds its nest in a loamy sandy area at least 60 cm deep with dead growth.”

Unfortunately, the hope of the left faction that the decision on the B-Plan Parkstadt Dösen would become the standard in Leipzig was not fulfilled.

“With the present application, we will now take this into account. In all urban construction measures, including LWF’s, the existing wildlife species should be taken into account and the buildings should be constructed in such a way that they find a home. In addition, AAD should be taken into account in the development of B-plans and decided with the urban development contract.”

The city planning office has now decided on the left-wing faction’s application. In principle, it agrees with the request, but prefers to formulate one of the core statements a little more openly:

“In urban planning, to the extent that this may have a direct impact on the animal species present there, appropriate consideration is given to the habitat requirements of the animal species that may be affected. Appropriate measures will be anchored in urban development contracts where appropriate.”

Role model Wilhelm-Leuschner-Platz?

And that’s where it gets exciting. At the same time, the city planning office says: “In the development of Parkstadt Dösen and currently in the development plan process No. 392 Wilhelm-Leuschner-Platz, the planning approach was already taken into account in connection with separately ordered reports (species protection diversity concept).”

But especially on Wilhelm-Leuschner-Platz, there has been massive criticism to this day that there is no alternative in the immediate vicinity of the nature types that must be removed, so species protection is not really implemented in the plans.

Because it was not without reason that the left-wing faction referred to the specific construction site on which the construction work is taking place. Species protection should primarily be practiced there and anchored in the development plans.

That the city planning office softens the very core of the Linke application should definitely be discussed in the city council proceedings.

Because the latter had specifically requested: “The Animal Aided Design planning approach is taken into account when developing development plans. Appropriate measures must be anchored in the town planning contract.”

So animal-supported design is mandatory for all urban building projects.

Not everything that is technically desirable…

But here the urban planning office tries to build in room for interpretation again, leaving exactly that to the interpretation of the respective offices:

“The fact that the habitat requirements of the animal species must be ‘taken into account in an appropriate way’ is intended to make it clear that an appropriate technical and substantive investigation must be carried out on the one hand with the habitat requirements and possibly on the other hand, with the measures adapted to them and their utility. In addition, consideration also includes the (possibly legal and/or contractual) anchoring of the measures. This must also be done in an appropriate way if the anchoring is to be effective and legally secure.”

“As far as the conceivable anchoring of certain measures in building plans is concerned, it must be made clear here that the possibilities for anchoring such measures when determining the building plan are also limited by the underlying authorization according to the Building Planning Act (§ 9 BauGB). Not everything that that is desirable from a technical point of view can be specified in the development plan.”

With which the town planning office casually refers to building legislation, which for decades did not take the slightest consideration of existing biotopes and animal species on the property.

Only the left has specifically called for animal-supported design for urban building projects, initially excluding private projects. So it is strange when an office builds a loophole from the outset and notes regretfully: “Not everything that is desirable from a technical point of view can be specified in the development plan.”

The left faction’s proposal contains a very clear “Yes!”

In times of massive species loss and dwindling biological diversity, perhaps one should take this “yes!” seriously.

Leave a Comment