Federal Court rules in favor of holiday home owners – Platform J

by 247sports
0 comments

St. Petersinsel | 6. September 2024

The owner of a holiday home on St. Peter’s Island replaced 56 floorboards – without a building permit. He had to defend this decision before the Federal Court and was now successful.

The holiday homes on St. Peter’s Island are located approximately in the middle of the peninsula on the southern shore.Photo: Keystone

The owner of a holiday home in the nature reserve on St. Peter’s Island was allowed to replace the floor of his terrace. Following the Bernese Administrative Court, the Federal Court also came to this conclusion.

There are about a dozen holiday homes on St. Peter’s Island that were built from the 1930s onwards. In the 1960s, the area was declared a nature reserve. It is included in various conservation inventories. Repairs to the houses are only permitted if they do not extend the life of the holiday homes.

56 Parts board

The man had replaced all 56 planks on the terrace without obtaining a building permit. The local municipality of Twann-Tüscherz then ordered the demolition of the terrace.

The man had not only replaced the rotten boards, but all of the terrace’s floorboards. If this were allowed, the holiday homes could gradually be completely replaced, the municipality claimed.

The holiday home owner replied that his house had been built legally and that he could not be prevented from maintaining it on an ongoing basis so that he could use the house until the end of its normal lifespan.

The Federal Court concluded that replacing the wooden floorboards was within the scope of permissible renovation. The Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) is also of this opinion, as can be seen from its enforcement aid for buildings and structures in moorland landscapes.

Read More:  Rules. SOM Table Tennis 2 team recently in Regional 4

Temporary idyll

Holiday homes have often been a matter for the courts, particularly when it comes to repairs. In the case of a holiday home that had caught fire, the Federal Court ruled in 2013 that reconstruction was not permitted. In principle, the buildings contradict the goals of nature conservation legislation, which wants the moorland to remain as untouched as possible.

2024-09-06 12:17:37

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.