The Planning and Environment Committee meeting on 2 June 2026 covered, among other things, the energy-efficient refurbishment of the town hall and a few changes to the legal status of roads, mainly in Birgden, Schierwaldenrath and Gangelt.
But there are two issues we want to look at in particular:
Repeal of Development Plan No. 45 “Wind energy concentration zone Breberen Nord”
On the L228 between Saeffelen and Villa, two old wind turbines stand to the right of the road. They are to be replaced by more modern, more powerful turbines. This so-called “repowering” is blocked by Development Plan No. 45 from 2004, which still specifies the old turbine types and a maximum height of 150 m.
The development plan is to be repealed without replacement. The area will then fall under the normal rules for building outside built-up areas (Section 35 of the German Building Code, BauGB), and taller turbines will be possible. The land-use plan continues to safeguard wind energy use there.
Around 50 authorities and public bodies were consulted. The few comments received – for example from the German armed forces regarding flight altitudes near the NATO airbase – do not pose a fundamental obstacle. However, it currently looks as though the maximum height will have to be limited to 200 m precisely because of NATO. No comments were received from the public.
We support the expansion of renewable energy in principle. We are voting in favour of the proposal.
Construction of a henhouse for 6,000 laying hens in Hastenrath
West of Hastenrath, on the road to Süsterseel, a henhouse for 6,000 laying hens is to be built directly behind the traditional orchard meadow. The designated total area is 10,000 m². That works out at just 1.6 m² per hen. This is not free-range farming – that would require 4 m² per animal.
It will come as no surprise that we are not happy about this kind of animal husbandry.
Unfortunately, according to the application, this is a privileged project under Section 35 BauGB, and since all the requirements are met, the municipality has to approve it.
What we nevertheless miss is concrete evidence: where is the proof that no public interests stand in the way of the project? Where is the proof that it is a privileged project?
We find the information provided here very thin.
comment article