Facts
K. intended to construct a new residential building on a plot of land in the agricultural zone, as his previous residential building was demolished in 1992 to use the land for the expansion of a clay pit. The cantonal spatial planning office and the municipality granted the necessary permits. F. and J. challenged these permits, and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Lucerne revoked them. K. then filed an administrative court appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It stated that the reconstruction of a demolished building outside the building zone is only permissible under Art. 24 para. 2 of the former Spatial Planning Act (aSPA) if the old building was still usable for its intended purpose at the time of demolition and there was an uninterrupted interest in its continued use. Furthermore, the replacement building must preserve the essential features of the previous building in terms of size and use and must not deviate significantly from the former location.
In the present case, there was indeed an uninterrupted interest in use, as the demolition of the residential building in 1992 was carried out to use the land for a clay pit. However, the planned new building was 260 meters away from the former location, which constituted an excessively large spatial shift and contradicted the identity of the replacement building.
Even though the new building could be well integrated into the existing group of houses, it…