ᐅ Full story: Is a basement considered a recessed or stepped story?

I need to tap into the collective knowledge here, as a question has come up in my circle of friends:

Whether a storey counts as a full storey is usually treated differently, meaning:
when it comes to an attic storey, it is assessed based on the standard "how large is it compared to the adjacent storey directly below";
when it comes to a basement storey, it is assessed based on the standard "how far does it protrude above ground on average."

In connection with a steep slope, my question now is: Does anyone have experience or knowledge of successfully applying the assessment standard used for upper storeys also to lower storeys, that is,

applying the concept of a recessed storey—in terms of smaller floor area relative to the directly above storey—to a basement storey?

In the specific case, a basement in Rhineland-Palatinate would on average protrude more than 1.40 meters (4 feet 7 inches) above the terrain but would be significantly smaller in floor area than the ground floor, especially if only living space is counted (since it would contain just a small apartment and mostly storage and technical rooms).

The intended non-full storey would be considered a recessed attic storey and therefore not a full storey—is it acceptable that
the same storey, when built below the ground floor
would suddenly be counted as a full storey—
just because the average protrusion exceeds 1.40 meters (4 feet 7 inches)?

Would this fall under "life is unfair" or already under "discrimination between upper and lower non-full storeys"?

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

11ant schrieb:
In this specific case, a basement in RLP would on average extend more than 1.40 m (4.6 ft) above ground level, but its footprint would be significantly smaller than that of the ground floor,

However, the protruding 1.40 m (4.6 ft) of the basement refers to the exterior walls of the main floor, that is, the ground floor.
When it comes to full stories, the issue is about height and appearance. With a partial basement, the story is effectively staggered, so it may protrude “more” by itself without affecting the overall exterior appearance.

Questions like this arise when one analyzes their own ideas without consulting an architect or a general contractor.

11ant schrieb:
One has to accept that
the same floor is not built above, but below the ground floor,
and then suddenly would count as a full storey—
just because it exceeds an average height of one point four meters (4.6 feet)?

Yes.

ypg schrieb:
But the outstanding 1.40 meters (4.6 feet) of the basement refer to the external walls of the main storey

Where? Not in the building regulations in the Rhineland-Palatinate (RP), not in my region (North Rhine-Westphalia, NRW), and even not where you are (Lower Saxony, NI). Everywhere it only matters how far the upper edge of the ceiling of the relevant storey is above ground level. Therefore, I answer the question

11ant schrieb:
Would that still fall under ‘life is unfair’

with “yes.”
Since this concerns a specification in the zoning plan (under Section 34 of the Building Code, the integration requirement does not necessarily have to apply to the number of storeys), there is the option of applying for an exemption in case of unreasonable hardship, where a persuasive management consultant can certainly support the architect in the justification. In the described case, there should be no obstacle to approval of an exemption because an extension of the basement into the hillside would likely negate the classification as a full storey in calculations, yet visually cause no change. Therefore, the deviation could be considered acceptable in terms of urban planning under Section 31 (2) 2 of the Building Code.

However, if the building project aims to maximize all permitted limits so that the structure planned is not what the authority intended, then the authority will cling to any minor issue to refuse approval. I am thinking, for example, of buildings designed as two-storey in terms of the official limit but which may appear as five-storey from the hillside side.

11ant schrieb:

Would this still fall under "life is unfair," or is it already "gender discrimination between above-ground and below-ground non-habitable floors"?

The truly absurd part of the legal regulation is exactly what Escroda pointed out: just make the basement so much bigger that your average height comes under 1.40 meters (4 ft 7 in). So, there are two options: either first try to argue for an exemption, and if that doesn’t work, simply enlarge the basement until it meets the 1.40-meter (4 ft 7 in) requirement, OR plan a larger basement right from the start.

Illogical, I know. But that’s how the system works at this point. We had a similar discussion during our building permit / planning permission application—with exactly the issue Escroda mentioned: that the site development plan was pushed to the absolute limit... well, almost.

Oh, I wouldn’t have expected that. It seems you get penalized for building a partial basement. What a frustration.
My statement was, of course, not based on facts but purely derived from logic. It just goes to show how logical some laws are.