ᐅ Questions Regarding the Interpretation of Section 34 of the Building Code

We have purchased a plot of land to build a single-family house. There used to be some old buildings on the property, which have now been demolished. We are currently focusing intensively on planning the house. There is no local land-use plan (building plan / planning permission) for the plot, so according to the responsible building authority, Section 34 of the German Building Code applies. I have read the legal text several times but did not gain much clarity, so I searched for interpretation aids... to say the least, it’s quite complex. I hope someone here in the forum can help us with our questions.

In the attached image below, our plot is outlined in red. There are land-use plans (building plans / planning permissions) for the two red areas. Section 34 states that a project is permissible if it aligns with the character of the immediate surroundings in terms of the type and extent of land use, building method, and the area of the plot to be built on, and if access infrastructure is secured.

What does this actually mean for our project? Should we orient ourselves according to the land-use plan on the right side? That would be a row of terraced houses standing perpendicular to the street, with houses arranged behind them. Or should we follow the three houses on the left side? Can three houses really be considered a coherent building context? Or the houses on the opposite side of the street?

How far from the street would we need to build our house? We definitely want to build farther from the street than the neighbors on the left side. What would be the best way to argue this? Could it help that an old building, which we have now demolished, was roughly in the center of the plot?

Thank you very much for your help.

NmM you are free to do whatever you want.
Following one reference building is nonsense. Use the one on the left and/or right.
An imaginary building boundary or building envelope that you can use as a guide: draw a straight line between the frontmost and rearmost house, and you will have a generous building envelope.
I don’t see any strict line that could limit you.
However, I would have an architect prepare and submit the plans.

Schlenk-Bär schrieb:

Should we align with the development plan on the right side?

No.

Schlenk-Bär schrieb:

Or with the three houses on the left side?

Yes, and

Schlenk-Bär schrieb:

with the houses on the opposite side of the street

Schlenk-Bär schrieb:

Can you even talk about a development pattern when there are only three houses?

Yes, but mainly in relation to the immediate surroundings.

Schlenk-Bär schrieb:

How far from the street should we build our house?

I agree with Yvonne. The three houses to the west effectively create a building line; you need to maintain at least the same setback as these. Assuming an exact building line—that you have to keep the exact same distance—would be a bit risky since three houses are too few and there are no defined building lines on the other streets. You just have to be careful with the building depth. If the rear building of house number 18 is not a residential building, I see an effective building boundary at the back edge of your old building.

Schlenk-Bär schrieb:

What is the best way for us to argue this?

A smooth transition from the development on the west side to the development on the east side. Of course, only if you don’t want to build further back than the row houses.

Schlenk-Bär schrieb:

Could it help us that an old building, which we have now demolished, was roughly in the middle of the plot?

Section 3 of the Cologne Constitution: "What’s gone is gone." — so rather not.

Thank you for the responses. I have actually spoken with several planners who interpret this very differently. That’s why I contacted the local authority to ask if a consultation appointment would be possible. I have received a positive reply. I don’t want to go into the meeting unprepared, so here is my question.

@Escroda You mentioned that a building line cannot be identified on the other streets either. How do you justify that exactly? What are the criteria for a building line?

Thanks also for the argument about the smooth transition. However, we would like to set the building back a little further than the southern wall of the townhouse. The reason is that we need enough space in front of the house to turn a car around. The street is quite busy during peak hours. Reversing onto it is almost impossible. How can we best argue for setting the building back further than the townhouse?

Thank you very much for your efforts.

Schlenk-Bär schrieb:

How exactly do you justify that?

A building line is an urban planning design element intended to create strict order. In the zoning plan, you need a strong justification for limiting building freedom so strictly; that’s why building lines are rare. A §34 area would have to be so clearly structured that any deviation would obviously disrupt the harmony. Examples can be seen in many cities where the Allied forces built settlements with identical houses for the families of stationed soldiers.
However, in your entire excerpt, there is no consistent street setback.

Schlenk-Bär schrieb:

So how can we argue if we want to build further back than the rear building height (RH)?

As long as you don’t want to build beyond the actual rear building line, in my opinion, you don’t need any arguments. I can’t understand the car turning issue, since the neighbors obviously found a solution as well.

Sounds very good. I hope the authority sees it the same way. The rear building of No. 18 is a residential building. This means, in the end, that the building envelope extends over the entire property (except at the front, not closer to the street than the neighbors to the west)?