ᐅ Questions Regarding the Interpretation of Section 34 of the Building Code
Created on: 2 Sep 2019 19:45
S
Schlenk-Bär
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.
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.
Escroda schrieb:
Actual building boundaries exist only in the observer’s imagination. Here is my interpretation (dark blue):I would have agreed with this interpretation of the buildingboundary—if the authority were now referring to a buildingline...Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
that the authority speaks of an actual building line, which they determine based on three houses....then I can clearly imagine this as well: namely, as the same distance to the street as with houses 22, 20, and 18.I think it is appropriate that the authority does not dictate the design to the architect. A professional should not be truly clueless here, even with limited experience.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
The result is really worrying us right now. Yes, it seems the worst fears have come true.
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
submitted a written inquiry What does that mean? A formal building pre-application? With photo documentation? Is there a plan that was submitted?
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
after the architect’s further inquiry What does that mean? In writing, by phone, or in person?
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
I find it harsh that the authority refers to a de facto building line based on three houses. I think this interpretation wouldn’t stand up in court, but who has the time or money to challenge it?
S
Schlenk-Bär14 Oct 2019 20:53Escroda schrieb:
YES, it seems the worst fears have come true. You’re right, and it feels like a slap in the face for us.
Escroda schrieb:
What does that mean? A formal building pre-application? With photo documentation? Did he submit a plan? He sent a request by e-mail. It was not a formal building pre-application. Photo documentation was included. Yes, there was a plan. He attached a volume study – site plan overview and various perspectives.
Escroda schrieb:
What do you mean? In writing, by phone, or in person? By e-mail.
Escroda schrieb:
I believe this interpretation wouldn’t stand up in court, but who has the time and money to sue over it? Exactly. We are seriously considering selling the plot again. And that after many years of searching. Even though it wasn’t a formal building pre-application, the authority will not change its position by 180 degrees.
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
They submitted an inquiry via email. That’s unfortunate. In the thread, we always talked about a scheduled meeting, an in-person visit, or an exploratory discussion. I believe that this half-formal, partially written communication by email is less than ideal, because you can’t really exchange views without full commitment.
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
We are seriously considering reselling the plot. If the 10m (33 feet) distance is that important to you… I don’t see it as a strict requirement.
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
Yes, there was a plan. Please show it.
S
Schlenk-Bär14 Oct 2019 21:44Escroda schrieb:
That’s unfortunate. In the thread, we always talked about a meeting appointment, a personal visit, or an exploratory discussion. I consider this semi-official, half-written communication via email suboptimal, as you can’t really exchange views without some sort of commitment. We wanted to leave that to the professional (architect). He believed that this way would be better. Besides, he wanted to make a phone call, but the lady at the office didn’t consider it necessary to answer the phone.
Escroda schrieb:
If the 10m (33 feet) distance is so important to you ... I don’t see that as an absolute necessity. It’s not just about that. The authority requires recording the actual front building line and compliance with the building depth of the main uses. In plain terms: we could build a lousy little birdhouse (on a 1200 m² (12,917 sq ft) plot). In that case, it’s better to keep renting, where the floor plan fits just as poorly.
But: thanks again for your help.
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
we could build a crappy small birdhouse (on a 1200 m² (12,917 sq ft) plot). How do you come to that conclusion?!
The resulting building area might not be very deep, but it does have a certain width. Besides, only the specific design will show what is actually allowable for approval and what is not.