The structural change which has been taking place in Austrian agriculture since Austria joined the EU has also entailed new challenges for land use planning authorities. In order to stay competitive, farmers have to adapt to more intensive farming. For livestock farmers this means an increase in animal numbers, which results in the need for larger sheds. Frequently, the existing space at the local farm is not sufficient, nor are extensions within the village or town desirable because of the increase in air pollution. As for constructing the necessary buildings outside the village area, other problems arise, such as the destruction of the local scenery; unfavourable wind directions, which might transport the polluted air back into residential areas; to name but a few.<br />Beside land use planning, also legal procedures are affected by the structural changes. So far, legal regulations have been based on the requirements of traditional agriculture. These laws, however, fall short of adequately meeting the needs created by the structural changes. That is why land use planning laws have been adapted to the new facts in most Austrian provinces in recent years, including the province of Burgenland, where the project proposed in this paper is located.<br />Legal permission to build large-scale piggeries in grassland areas does not only depend on nominal development planning laws, but also comprises approval concerning other relevant functional planning criteria. In every single case, construction projects at this scale have to comply with building laws and regulations, as well as with the environmental impact assessment and/or the plant construction law (IPPC). Furthermore, since the project is situated in a grassland area, laws pertaining to conservation and, depending on the location, to forestry and waterways have to be considered. For the project in question here - a large-scale piggery in northern Burgenland - the laws concerning building regulations, land use planning and conservation have been identified as relevant. In this context, the project must first be examined as to whether it fulfils land use planning regulations; should it fail to do so, legal proceedings have to be taken, i. e. the land utilization plan has to be altered.<br />An interesting aspect of the proposed project is the fact that during the building permission proceedings the legislation for land use planning was changed. Therefore, other criteria have to be applied now so that the project complies with the new regulations. Before the amendment, it was sufficient for a building project of this scale ( proposed size: 1600 porkers) to meet the necessity criteria under § 20 section 4 & 5 Bgld RPlG if it were to be granted land use planning permission under the heading "agriculturally productive grassland" in the land utilization plan. Now, after the amendment, it is necessary to obtain permission for special grassland utilization under § 16 section 3 leg. cit. in addition to the necessity criteria under § 20 section 4 & 5 leg. cit. For the planning authorities, this means an active decision for certain locations. As a result, the new provision is suited to promote a more realistic awareness concerning projects of this kind.<br />Experience so far shows, however, that only very few municipalities in the Burgenland have identified certain areas for large animal-housing buildings (or, more generally, agriculturally used buildings) in their local development plans. If projects of this kind are presented to the administrative authorities at all, they are classified just as the case may be, or the land utilization plan may not be changed in any way, which means that the project cannot be realized. However, since development planning claims to anticipate future developments, classifications as the case may be are not, in fact, good solutions. If one looks more closely at the necessity criteria under § 20 section 5 Bgld RPlG, even more questions arise of how to implement the regulations. There are actually no criteria to evaluate the factual and functional connection between the building measures and their allocated use. It is even difficult, if not impossible, to make out whether another location might be better suited for the project in question. All these examples of potential problems show that there is substantial difficulty in implementing the new land use planning law, although its original intention to adapt to the new requirements must be looked upon favourably.<br />The case study introduced in this paper was first evaluated according to the legal regulations before the amendment, which proved difficult because, though the facts of the case were legally provided for, the necessity criteria were aimed at other, smaller projects and therefore could not easily be examined for a project of this scale. As a result, the building permission proceedings were protracted for so long that the legislation for land use planning was altered in the meantime. Thus, the applicant now needs permission for special grassland utilization under § 16 section 3 Bgld RPlG. In case the municipal authorities grant this permission - which cannot be legally claimed by the applicant -, also the necessity criteria have to be met, which have not been altered by the amendment and still aim at projects based on traditional agriculture. With all these problems, it will be exceedingly difficult, if possible at all, to decide whether the respective criteria are met.<br />In order to solve the problems mentioned above, it would be helpful to resolve the dispute over the location of such projects by inducing municipal authorities to display potential locations for these projects in their local development plans. In addition, the necessity criteria ought to be reconsidered and reformulated in order to gain well-defined criteria which a project unequivocally does, or does not, meet.<br />