Facts
The appellant S. operates an agricultural business based on organic-biodynamic principles in the municipality of X. outside the settlement area in the agricultural zone. Without prior authorization, he made various structural changes, including the installation of three caravans. The municipality subsequently granted a building permit, but excluded the installation of the caravans, as the competent authority refused the necessary special permit under Art. 24 of the Spatial Planning Act (RPG). S. unsuccessfully challenged this decision up to the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the rejection of the special permit for the two caravans. Residential buildings in the agricultural zone are only zone-compliant insofar as they are indispensable for the land-dependent use of the land. The privilege of living outside the building zone remains reserved for a relatively small group of people who are directly engaged in agriculture. It is not a matter of the individual's subjective ideas and wishes, but rather an objective assessment of whether there is an operational necessity for a permanent presence.
The Federal Supreme Court saw no reason to deviate from these principles in the case of organic farming operations. The special needs of organic farming can only be taken into account insofar as they are objectively justified and not merely based on the subjective ideas of the farmer. In the present case, the seven rooms of the farmhouse were sufficient to meet the housing needs…