ᐅ Current Building Practices and New Residential Developments Compliant with Energy Efficiency Regulations

... and because of this regulatory overreach down to every detail, new residential areas in Germany all look the same—monotonous and dull. The architect ends up reduced to a clerk handling building permits / planning permission applications... Creativity and architectural expression have no place here. It’s a nightmare if you have a clear vision of what your dream home should look like.

Müllerin schrieb:
But then the exact same thing is built – yes, that does bother me. But we will see if it stays. Probably not, the city council is already extremely annoyed.

The city council being annoyed won’t help if the planning approval is based on arbitrariness. They also have to comply with the law and cannot just do whatever they want.

May I ask what exactly bothers you about it? Is it just that someone else didn’t follow (possibly nonsensical) rules while you did (and would have preferred otherwise)? Or are there valid reasons, such as a small animal whose paths are blocked by the gabions (which I personally find awful), or reduced visibility in the area of driveways?

Müllerin schrieb:
I would never build there and then face facing fines like 30,000 as a penalty or something.

I wouldn’t either. However, it is a misconception to think there are actual fines. These do not exist; instead, administrative fees must be paid. Court rulings might be different.
The fact that a demolition order is often not issued is usually justified by proportionality. Demanding a complete change just because of shiny roof coverings, which may not even be very noticeable (hip roof, low roof pitch, little visibly effective surface), is generally not considered proportional. I personally see this differently, as intent is often involved—someone knowing exactly what they were doing. But intent is very difficult to prove, so at worst it is negligence, and then a removal order would no longer be proportional. This also has to be accepted, as well as the respective zoning plan.

Well, I’ve written this elsewhere before, but my dream house would only fit on a really large plot. The distance to the neighbors would then be big enough that it wouldn’t bother them if I wanted a blue facade with a green roof and yellow windows.

I also like variety, within limits. Because the way the house looks from the outside is what I see in the garden and when I come home. Once I’m inside, only the neighbors see my building mistakes—they have to look at them more often than I do.

Addendum since I just noticed:

What bothers me is the preliminary ruling. As I said before: if I don’t agree, I can submit a change request beforehand – apparently some people in the area did that and were allowed to build their stuff as they wanted. Others just didn’t ask and didn’t follow the guidelines.

What annoys me about these fences specifically is that I like green. I’m fine with a metal grille fence (wrought iron-style fence), but there’s this bad habit of putting plastic sheets through it so no one can look in. And those are usually gray. Then you get gabion walls, in this case about 2m (6.5 ft) high and 1m (3.3 ft) wide every 2-3m (6.5-10 ft) — well, ugly. Plus, they heat up much more in summer than bushes, which isn’t necessary.

And the roof tiles are on a relatively steep gable roof, meaning they will definitely cause glare at some time of day. I do like the tiles, they suit the house—but again, only the neighbors are affected negatively, not the selfish builder.

Traumfaenger schrieb:
... and because of this regulatory obsession down to the smallest detail, new housing developments in Germany often look uniform, monotonous, and boring. The architect is reduced to an administrator handling building permits/planning permissions... Creativity and architecture have no place here. A nightmare if you have specific ideas of how your dream home should look.

Hm, in our area, there is a lot of variety, apart from the Viebrockhouse-style homes. And that’s despite clear rules like two-thirds white plaster, single-story, no garden sheds, 4-6 RAL colors, etc. Remove all these guidelines, and every house is different [emoji2]

Personally, I always warn against designing your dream home in too much visual detail beforehand. Many get stuck on one idea, even though their tastes often change over time and they might be happy with something different.
This current fixation on, for example, two-story buildings is sometimes stubbornness; the positive reasons behind it can be addressed in other ways as well.
This applies to other restrictions too.
I can’t imagine that other regions have better options for flexible plots or new developments: I’d rather take the bird in hand and build a fresh dream home than wait years only to end up with the dusty dream house I imagined years ago.

But I think this is the real issue: many fixate on a dark or red roof and are unwilling to agree with others on a different roof shape or color—even though they themselves will hardly ever see their roof (except in maps). And suddenly, they end up in a building forum complaining about zoning plans.

I also remember that some here consider it a No-Go to share a heating system. I don’t understand that. I would gladly take a plot with a great house and that one drawback rather than not owning anything at all. Well, everyone is different. But _not_ being willing to compromise often means having or getting much less. For some, constantly criticizing details translates into giving up on many enjoyable years in their own home.

Müllerin schrieb:
As I already mentioned: if something doesn’t suit me, I can submit a change request beforehand – apparently, some people in the area have done this and were then allowed to build their stuff as they wanted.
Others simply didn’t ask and didn’t follow the rules.

Specific case from our building area: the municipality requires red roof tiles for shed roofs in the development plan, max roof pitch 16 degrees. The property owner asks the municipality for an exemption because he wants to cover a 7-degree (7°) low-pitched roof with anthracite-colored tiles. The municipality says no, reasoning: we don’t like it, anyone could come and ask. The property owner thinks: fine, I’ll do it in anthracite anyway. Nobody notices at first until a council member sees it three years later and asks the district office (as the approving authority) to issue a removal order. The district office says they will inspect it onsite but already refer to Article 14 of the Basic Law and the lack of planning objectives in the development plan behind the red tile requirement. The council member believes the dark tiles disturb the village character. The site inspection shows: 7-degree roof pitch, hardly visible from the street, so the village character cannot be affected. Also, two streets away, two buildings with 45-degree roof pitch and black tiles have been approved (not covered by this development plan). Furthermore, the district office refers to four court rulings in similar cases where the municipality sued and lost. The district office says the legal situation is clear and therefore no removal order will be issued; it recommends the municipality either tolerate this or grant an individual exemption. The municipality rejects the exemption at the next council meeting, even though both the district office and the municipal building authority strongly recommend granting the exemption.
In summary: the property owner did exactly what you would expect by asking for an exemption early on. It was arbitrarily rejected, and a legal assessment by the approving authority found no legal basis for this requirement according to the district office. In your opinion, how should the property owner have acted here?

What bothers me about these fences is specifically that I like green.

I completely share your taste, but taste alone is by no means sufficient to restrict other people’s constitutional rights. And I think it is actually appropriate that arbitrary decisions and subjective preferences cannot justify such restrictions, especially when you consider what that would mean if applied in other areas.

Regarding the roof tiles: I don’t like the glazed ones at all. But you say they WILL definitely glare at SOME POINT. So it hasn’t happened yet and is only a supposition?!
Well, I find it difficult to judge based on a mere assumption. If they SHOULD start to cause glare someday, you still have legal recourse. It should be an easy case to win if the facts are clear and intentional harm can be proven [emoji6]

Müllerin schrieb:
...
What bothers me is the addition in front. As I already mentioned: if I don’t like it, I can submit a change request beforehand....

...
What specifically bothers me about these fences is that I prefer green. I am generally fine with metal mesh fencing, but there is this bad habit of attaching plastic sheets to prevent visibility. And these are mostly gray. Then there are gabions added, in this case 2 meters (6.5 feet) high and 1 meter (3.3 feet) wide every 2-3 meters (6.5-10 feet)

I can relate:

I don’t like that plastic either. Not in gray, nor in green. Plastic in general, no. I would tolerate a sheet at the bottom, for whatever reason.

In our neighborhood, several semi-detached houses have recently been occupied, including some by people who already lived in this area. Now there are complaints against a chicken keeper and his rooster: they are said to be too loud and crow too much. Seriously, we live in a rural area—you should check the surroundings and neighbors before building.