Hello everyone,
We are currently at the stage in our planning where we have submitted the building notification. The city now states that the terrace roof, being a separate structural element, cannot be included in the calculation of the number of floors. Inclusion is only possible if the roof is clearly part of the house structure, for example, a shed roof or extended ceiling slabs.
Since the building regulations do not allow for two full stories, we wanted to reach that value using this terrace.
Now, my question: Are there any additional options beyond the two mentioned above that would allow this to count toward the living area?
Attached are the floor plan of the ground floor and rear and side elevations.
Regards,
KonstantinW
We are currently at the stage in our planning where we have submitted the building notification. The city now states that the terrace roof, being a separate structural element, cannot be included in the calculation of the number of floors. Inclusion is only possible if the roof is clearly part of the house structure, for example, a shed roof or extended ceiling slabs.
Since the building regulations do not allow for two full stories, we wanted to reach that value using this terrace.
Now, my question: Are there any additional options beyond the two mentioned above that would allow this to count toward the living area?
Attached are the floor plan of the ground floor and rear and side elevations.
Regards,
KonstantinW
K
KonstantinW7 Dec 2020 23:5411ant schrieb:
... but responding to my post #13 ;-)if you want to...
11ant schrieb:
That’s unusual – are you sure this is not a misunderstanding?No. The southern part of the area only allows flat to low-pitched roofs (up to 15°) and the northern part allows all roofs with a steeper pitch.
11ant schrieb:
Then they will have to be lower.we don’t want that..
11ant schrieb:
You won’t get those.Then I guess we’ll have to manage without a solution 😉
11ant schrieb:
But I suspect: then it won’t be allowed to be built on the boundary line (?)That’s why @sascha-t4-le also said it won’t work as a garage, at least not the way I plan it
KonstantinW schrieb:
we don’t want it like that..Not even if it were the solution?https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
K
KonstantinW8 Dec 2020 00:0911ant schrieb:
Not even if it would be the solution?It is a solution, but not THE solution 😉
So let's wait and see...
Either someone who knows more about this will chime in, or we’ll sit down with the architect, and in the end, I might be able to convince you otherwise—if everything gets approved 🙂
S
sascha-t4-le8 Dec 2020 10:28Hello,
just some information:
The 2006 version of the HE-HBO included the following:
“The areas of garages integrated into buildings are added. Areas of attached garages are not considered when calculating the floor area. Due to the purely planning-related significance of the definition of a full storey, the assessment of whether the garage is integrated depends on the external appearance of the building, not on the technical separation between garage use and other uses.”
I believe this also includes boundary garages. Maybe they extended their interpretation too far, since this statement was removed in the new edition.
Similarly, the following text was included in 2006 but has also been removed. I find that somewhat odd. I think responsibility should be assigned to the builder or architect.
“The ‘gross floor area of the storey below’ is determined according to DIN 277 part 1 by the outer edges or outer surfaces of the building enclosing walls or—if the storey has no enclosing walls—by the outer edges or outer surfaces of the structural elements delimiting the storey. This means:
• Areas of building parts that extend beyond the building enclosing walls, e.g., balconies, are not included in the gross floor area calculation; this does not apply where balconies are covered and does not apply to covered terraces,
• Areas set back behind the outer wall alignment, e.g., loggias, are included in the gross floor area calculation.”
Best regards
just some information:
The 2006 version of the HE-HBO included the following:
“The areas of garages integrated into buildings are added. Areas of attached garages are not considered when calculating the floor area. Due to the purely planning-related significance of the definition of a full storey, the assessment of whether the garage is integrated depends on the external appearance of the building, not on the technical separation between garage use and other uses.”
I believe this also includes boundary garages. Maybe they extended their interpretation too far, since this statement was removed in the new edition.
Similarly, the following text was included in 2006 but has also been removed. I find that somewhat odd. I think responsibility should be assigned to the builder or architect.
“The ‘gross floor area of the storey below’ is determined according to DIN 277 part 1 by the outer edges or outer surfaces of the building enclosing walls or—if the storey has no enclosing walls—by the outer edges or outer surfaces of the structural elements delimiting the storey. This means:
• Areas of building parts that extend beyond the building enclosing walls, e.g., balconies, are not included in the gross floor area calculation; this does not apply where balconies are covered and does not apply to covered terraces,
• Areas set back behind the outer wall alignment, e.g., loggias, are included in the gross floor area calculation.”
Best regards
KonstantinW schrieb:
It is one solution, but not THE solution [...] unless there is someone who still understands this, Quite "confident" ;-) for someone who has a problem and is offered a solution. You are making a false assumption if you deduce from only one solution that there must be a better one among those not yet mentioned to you. (Unfortunately, this applies only to Cinderella).
I have been familiar with this for about forty years, not as extensively as Escroda—but enough to tell you fairly confidently: in your case, the set of solutions contains exactly ONE element. If you now exclude this by definition ("solutions that are not wolpertingers don’t count"), your solution set becomes an empty set.
You have an upper floor identical in external dimensions to the footprint of the ground floor—these areas are therefore the same size. The only thing that enlarges your ground floor here is a covered terrace—which, no matter whether its roof is screwed, glued, or welded to the house, is not an enclosed space and cannot be counted as such. To reach your goal based solely on this covered terrace, it would have to increase the ground floor’s area by two-thirds—which, if your building permit / planning permission and plot ratio allow it, would still be an expensive endeavor. You shouldn’t dismiss a simpler solution so readily. Even Olivia Jones with mega heels and a hat or a tower hairstyle doesn’t necessarily need full headroom throughout the attic area with a ceiling height of 2.60m (8 ft 6 in). But please—keep dreaming. Still, I remain curious about the genius solution you plan to present later—thank you in advance, as many readers will look forward to it.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
S
Sparfuchs778 Dec 2020 12:47And what if you design the terrace as an unheated conservatory? The glass panels could be “disassembled later” 😉 Just an idea, and no clue if that would be a solution ^^
Similar topics