Agricultural buildings that are no longer needed: Parliament wants to authorize renovations

class=”sc-29f61514-0 icZBHN”>

With 110 votes in favor and 72 against and three abstentions, the National Council eliminated the corresponding difference with the small chamber on Monday. In particular, the Left Council and the GLP unsuccessfully argued that if the cantons could determine zones in which such conversions were allowed, this would be contrary to the purpose of the revision.

The Council of States’ proposal would put pressure on agriculture, criticized minority spokeswoman Priska Wismer-Felder (52, center). She mainly received support from the left of the city council. Martina Munz (67, SP) spoke of an ‘article of fate’. There is a risk that a gateway will be created for further urban expansion.

However, Environment Minister Albert Rösti (56) emphasized that the law requires compensation measures and an improvement of the overall situation for such conversions. The fear that an apartment building would suddenly rise somewhere is completely unfounded.

Extra income for farmers

Rösti pointed out that it could mean an important additional income for farmers if they could rent out an extra room. The Minister of the Environment expressed his incomprehension that some agricultural representatives rejected the provision on the switch.

Center State Councilor Benjamin Roduit (60) pointed out that without the facility, a situation would arise where Maiensässe would simply fall into disrepair.

The municipalities also agree to allow the demolition and reconstruction of restaurants built outside the construction area before 1980, and their expansion. The National Council initially only wanted such a provision for hotels.

Demolition bonuses under certain conditions

The proposal concerns building outside the construction zone. The core of the law revision is a stabilization objective. The cantons must indicate in the structure plan how they want to keep the number of buildings and the degree of sealing outside the construction zone stable. They must regularly report to the federal government and make adjustments if necessary.

Municipalities want to use incentive measures to ensure that buildings that are no longer in use disappear from the landscape. The cantons now have to pay demolition bonuses for such buildings under certain conditions.

The National Council agreed on Monday that such premiums could also be paid for agricultural and tourist buildings if a replacement building is built. A majority of the Council of States had previously complained that old buildings would otherwise remain standing.

The Green Kurt Egger (67) campaigned for a compromise without success: he wanted a bonus for the demolition and construction of new agricultural buildings, but not if the buildings were used for tourism.

Egger believed that if agricultural buildings in the agricultural zone were replaced, it would be in accordance with the zoning ordinance. This is not the case with new tourist replacement buildings. In fact, anyone who builds in a construction zone instead of in an agricultural zone can be disadvantaged.

There is still a difference in cell phone antennas

The National Council only wants to allow uses that are not tied to a location outside the building zones – for the benefit of economic development – ​​in mountain areas. However, according to the Council of States, they should be possible throughout the country.

Another remaining difference concerns the placement of cell phone antennas. The case goes back to the Council of States.

The spatial revision is also the indirect counter-proposal to the landscape initiative. However, it remains to be seen whether the initiators are willing to withdraw their request following Parliament’s latest decisions, as several speakers highlighted in the National Council debate. (SDA)

Source:Blick