ᐅ Mark the airspace – build directly enclosed (approximately 6–7 m²)?
Created on: 23 Aug 2025 22:41
D
dereks123
Hello everyone,
In our new build, the living area is calculated quite tightly. My architect said it’s not a problem to include an open space (about 6–7 m² (65–75 sq ft)) in the building permit / planning permission application to meet the required living area, and then actually build it as a fully closed space. He said this is common practice and usually not checked. It’s a new development area.
I’m interested in:
In our new build, the living area is calculated quite tightly. My architect said it’s not a problem to include an open space (about 6–7 m² (65–75 sq ft)) in the building permit / planning permission application to meet the required living area, and then actually build it as a fully closed space. He said this is common practice and usually not checked. It’s a new development area.
I’m interested in:
- Is this really common?
- Has anyone had experience with this (final inspection, later sale, insurance, etc.)?
MachsSelbst schrieb:
a missing air space, that will probably be agreed upon. No one will tear down the house because of that. However, requiring the removal of the dormers to correct the non-compliant condition would not, in my view, be considered disproportionate by a court of last instance.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
P.S., as mentioned: my preferred direction for the thread would be for the original poster to make the discussion more objective by sharing the plans for the ground floor and upper floor/attic. A debate between experts has a (limited) entertainment value, but it doesn’t really solve the actual issue.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
S
Schorsch_baut25 Aug 2025 20:25The building authority is usually not completely unaware and will wonder why large dormers are being constructed if there is only empty space behind them.
S
Schorsch_baut25 Aug 2025 20:28Oh, in our area, some demolitions have also been ordered following drone inspections and AI-supported aerial image analysis. This seems to be happening more often. And when I look around at everything that’s being crammed into the gardens, I’m not surprised.
M
MachsSelbst25 Aug 2025 20:54wiltshire schrieb:
That is complete nonsense. Such a reverse argument is neither logical nor consistent.
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. This is theory from your "Project Management for Beginners" guides, but it has very little to do with reality 😉
According to that logic, anyone who has ever paid a tradesperson under the table would mentally be a bad criminal capable of much worse misdeeds...
Tell me, do you sometimes drive 52 instead of 50 in the city? 😀
M
MachsSelbst25 Aug 2025 20:56Schorsch_baut schrieb:
Oh, in our area, some demolitions were ordered after drone surveys and AI-supported aerial image analysis. It seems to be happening more and more. And when I look around at all the stuff being thrown into the yards, I’m not surprised.Yes, that’s true. Thanks to drones and AI, it’s now so easy that these construction sites are being addressed more frequently.
As long as drones don’t fly inside the house to check floor plans or see through walls with X-ray vision… I don’t see much risk regarding violations inside the building.
I think building authorities are overrated in this regard; they approve and are happy to get rid of the building permit / planning permission application.