ᐅ Have the soil removed, or use it later on?

We are currently building a single-family house (9 m x 9.6 m [29.5 ft x 31.5 ft], no basement) on the site of an old house. The old house was demolished several months ago.
The plot is about 1000 m² (10,764 ft²).

We need to decide whether to keep the soil on our property or remove it.
It would be advantageous to keep the soil on site to avoid additional costs (approximately 180 m³ [6,360 ft³], 26 EUR per m³, about 5,000 EUR) and to later spread and reuse it in the garden.
However, I think the "soil" is actually sand (from the company that demolished the old house), so it may not be very suitable for further use in the garden.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of keeping the soil versus removing it?

Yes, for the lawn. It prefers sandy soil. You can assist the seeding with a bit of nitrogen fertilizer if needed.

Really?
The "floor" doesn’t look like a "sanding floor." It really looks like actual sand!
I am skeptical whether it is suitable for a lawn...
A house has already been on it for the past 80 years!!

Pepsan schrieb:
There has already been a house on that spot for the past 80 years!!

And the sand is much, much older. It doesn’t matter if it was beneath a house.

Here are some photos, taken just after the old house was demolished.
The "ground" is really sandy, I doubt it is suitable for grass...

...?

Thanks!

Take this advice from an experienced country dweller: Spread the sand, then add a 5cm (2 inch) layer of topsoil—ask a gardener, they can provide it—and plant the lawn on top. Once it starts growing, fertilize. Works great.

Alternative: leave a corner without topsoil and plant marram grass in the sand (gardener!). That would also be nice.