What is meant by provisionally selected

For the time being no relocation of the Hakengraben because of the planned bypass road Finkenwerder

The Higher Administrative Court today rejected the complaint of the authority (2 Bs 280/05), which had appealed against the decision of the Administrative Court of August 26, 2005. The administrative court had stopped the execution of the water law plan approval decision "Water law reorganization of the Old South Elbe" of October 28, 2004, because the plan is likely to be illegal (3 E 1828/05). This decision was confirmed by the Higher Administrative Court today. The city can therefore temporarily not move the "Hakengraben" south of the silt dump to the south.

The move of the Hakengraben is planned to create space for the Finkenwerder bypass on the so-called southern route. The administrative court had said that this route should not have been taken over from the Francop 7 / Neuenfelde 12 development plan for the planning approval procedure without its own examination and that it also deviates from the zoning plan because this does not provide for the relocation of the pit.

The OVG did not follow this. In his opinion, however, the decision made by the citizens on March 9, 2005 by amending the zoning plan for the southern route is legally incorrect because it is based on inadequate weighing of interests. The alternative district road was wrongly eliminated with the central argument that it required a 250 m long road bridge over the Alte Süderelbe, which should be avoided because of its disruption to the landscape. Further advantages and disadvantages of the district road compared to those of the selected southern route were therefore not weighted. The explanatory report on the zoning plan does not make it clear whether the district road was rejected because no bridge at all was to be built over the Alte Süderelbe or because a particularly complex bridge for road traffic was not wanted. In the first case, the assessment would be incorrect because it would have completely overlooked the fact that a 150 m long pedestrian and cyclist bridge should be built over the Alte Süderelbe in the immediate vicinity of the bridge required for the district road, which also has a significant impact on the landscape would. But if only the more massive construction of a bridge suitable for car traffic was decisive, then the district road should not have been completely eliminated for the further procedure. At the time when the district road was rejected, there were no drafts for a road bridge. Without further specification of the necessary dimensions and design of the road bridge, it was not possible to decide whether it should be eliminated because of a qualitative difference in the effects on the landscape compared to the pedestrian and cyclist bridge, which was considered acceptable in comparison. If the difference was only gradual, a comprehensive examination of all the advantages and disadvantages of the district road would have to be carried out, which is cheaper from several points of view than the selected southern route, e.g. because it would be significantly shorter and less private fruit-growing areas would have to be used.