ᐅ Mark the airspace – build directly enclosed (approximately 6–7 m²)?

Well, let’s move away from the legal-philosophical debate, in which, in my opinion, the positions have become clear, and focus instead on the likely practical background of the question or problem:

dereks123 schrieb:

In our new build, the living area has been calculated quite tightly. My architect said it wouldn’t be a problem to include an air space (about 6–7 m² (65–75 sq ft)) in the building permit / planning permission to stay within the allowable living area, and then actually build this space fully enclosed. He said this is common practice and usually not checked. It’s a new development area. [ / ]
This is an attic floor where we plan two dormers. Because of this, the total permitted living area will be exceeded. That’s why the architect has drawn an air space in the attic floor, although it is intended to be used as a normal room.

The original poster had a house designed where the upper floor/attic is not supposed to count as a full story according to the zoning plan. The architect (is he even an architect, or is this just the usual term of flattery for the general contractor’s building permit draftsman?) is clearly out of his depth with this task. In the design result, the full-story limit is breached in connection with two “dormers” (or even caused expressly by these?). Now, good expertise is expensive, so one looks for a cheap way out of the dilemma. The idea to designate a room (or part of it?) as supposedly “floorless” is believed to be a clever solution—unfortunately at the cost of bending the rules.

Calling the architect (or “architect”) a dishonorable fellow may be an accurate observation, but it doesn’t really solve the problem. I throw out the bold suggestion that the original poster should show the ground floor and upper floor / attic plans, so we can focus on the actual situation rather than jumping to premature conclusions.

---

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

11ant schrieb:

That the architect (or so-called "architect") is a dishonorable character is probably an accurate statement,

I do not want my comment to be interpreted that way, nor do I want it to come across like that.
When a business partner suggests acting at one’s own risk against regulations “because everyone does it,” it causes a loss of trust for me. Whether this is justified or not remains unclear. That is simply not my approach.

Approaching the situation by creating a drawing could certainly be interesting and may be helpful for the original poster.

The problem is that if almost everyone does it this way, you’re the one at a disadvantage if you don’t and end up with negative consequences.
Here, almost nobody complies with the regulations from the development plan, at least when it comes to the outdoor areas—such as adhering to the floor area ratio, required planting or mandatory greening of garages and carports, and so on.

Some neighbors even store their building materials on the public green verge, and nothing happened even after an inspection by the city 😉
So I started doing the same—just don’t block my driveway with that stuff...

I don’t know how it looks inside. But getting an inspection from the building authority for the interior of the house is, in my opinion, 99.5% unlikely. They don’t even have enough time to inspect the outdoor areas by drone or to process applications in a timely manner.
Neighbors can’t report you for something they don’t know about. So if you don’t invite them inside the house and don’t tell them anything... how would they know about an “airspace” that doesn’t exist?

And even if violations are identified, what’s going to happen? As long as the violation doesn’t pose a danger, it usually results in a fine or, at worst, an order to remove the offending structure—unless that would be disproportionate. For example, a paved surface exceeding the floor area ratio would have to be removed, but a missing airspace would probably be settled by agreement. No one is going to tear down the house because of that.

Unfortunately, it’s usually a case of “might makes right.”

MachsSelbst schrieb:

And even if violations are identified, what is supposed to happen? As long as the violation does not pose a danger, it usually results in a fine, and in the worst case, a demolition order, provided it is not disproportionate.

In my previous place of residence, it was the same—everyone did as they pleased. Eventually, officials discovered the usefulness of drones. Garages were demolished, swimming pools dismantled, conservatories removed, terraces converted back into lawns. All of this was considered proportionate. The building authority was so fed up with the "might is right" attitude that they launched a real campaign. I do not know a single person who was able to successfully oppose it. The legal situation was crystal clear.

I agree with you that it is highly unlikely to get caught inside the house. What makes me suspicious is that the architect knowingly proposes a solution that violates building regulations. Does he also tell the contractors later, “You can save on this; the client won’t notice”? Does he check the volume of excavated material during construction supervision, then let the subcontractor charge for a few extra cubic meters and a higher soil class? My trust would be shaken. If someone is willing to cut corners like that, why should I feel safe with them?

The naive idea behind this is that an architect who doesn’t raise such issues simply wouldn’t do so. Here, he’s actually bending the rules in favor of the homeowners. I would rather hope that he has contacts for disposing of poor-quality excavated soil than that he strictly follows every single regulation to the millimeter... who doesn’t know the story where homeowners weren’t even allowed to reuse their own excavated soil on their property, while the municipality just piled it up to build a noise barrier to save disposal costs...

That building authorities go overboard like that is more of a rarity, and there must have been serious violations for entire garages and pools to be demolished in order to comply with building regulations. This can only be due to these structures being built outside the approved building zones or the plot coverage ratio being so massively exceeded that simply changing a paved path to gravel or replacing a terrace with a wooden one is not enough.

And since it’s all external, nowadays it’s very easy to check the plot coverage ratio with drones and the appropriate software.

In any case, I don’t believe that an entire house will be torn down or that there will be major structural interventions just because an air space wasn’t executed as such. And as I said, someone has to be 100% certain first. Neighbors don’t just report each other on a whim; they have to be absolutely sure that everything on their own property is in order... and from what I see around here, that definitely isn’t the case 😉

MachsSelbst schrieb:

The naive idea behind this is that an architect who doesn’t bring this up wouldn’t do something like that.

That is complete nonsense. Such a conclusion is neither logical nor valid.
Anyone who encourages fraud is willing to commit fraud.
Of course, this does not mean that someone who does not encourage fraud is not willing to do so.