Hello,
we want to place our carport, measuring 6 x 9 meters (20 x 30 feet), right on the boundary with the neighbor. In Schleswig-Holstein, this is generally allowed without any application or approval, as long as certain rules are followed. We will have it installed by a reputable company that knows what needs to be considered.
The carport will be set up next to the house, extending 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) towards the garden at the back (for privacy/wind protection, etc.). The idea was to make the last 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) wider than the initial 6 meters (20 feet), partly covering the terrace (see attached drawing). The cross battens in the carport would simply need to be 9 meters (30 feet) long instead of 6 meters (20 feet) for the last 3.5 meters (11.5 feet), and two additional posts would support this extension. The carport manufacturer said this is technically no problem, but he wasn’t sure if it would be permitted. He mentioned that if it were separated, it would definitely be allowed. But what difference does it make whether it’s connected or not?
It’s not a larger covered area either, as the terrace is calculated the same for rainwater drainage (plus, our infiltration system is five times larger than required).
we want to place our carport, measuring 6 x 9 meters (20 x 30 feet), right on the boundary with the neighbor. In Schleswig-Holstein, this is generally allowed without any application or approval, as long as certain rules are followed. We will have it installed by a reputable company that knows what needs to be considered.
The carport will be set up next to the house, extending 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) towards the garden at the back (for privacy/wind protection, etc.). The idea was to make the last 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) wider than the initial 6 meters (20 feet), partly covering the terrace (see attached drawing). The cross battens in the carport would simply need to be 9 meters (30 feet) long instead of 6 meters (20 feet) for the last 3.5 meters (11.5 feet), and two additional posts would support this extension. The carport manufacturer said this is technically no problem, but he wasn’t sure if it would be permitted. He mentioned that if it were separated, it would definitely be allowed. But what difference does it make whether it’s connected or not?
It’s not a larger covered area either, as the terrace is calculated the same for rainwater drainage (plus, our infiltration system is five times larger than required).
Edit:
In my opinion, as a boundary construction without a physical separation, this is not eligible for approval. Only the structures explicitly listed in the respective state building codes are fully permitted as boundary constructions.
If an additional use is added on top, this privilege no longer applies. As a result, the usual setback must be maintained. This also applies to separate roof or balcony structures. The latter must also maintain the setback, even if it overhangs the carport or garage roof by 1cm (0.4 inches).
Without boundary construction, of course, this is possible.
In my opinion, as a boundary construction without a physical separation, this is not eligible for approval. Only the structures explicitly listed in the respective state building codes are fully permitted as boundary constructions.
If an additional use is added on top, this privilege no longer applies. As a result, the usual setback must be maintained. This also applies to separate roof or balcony structures. The latter must also maintain the setback, even if it overhangs the carport or garage roof by 1cm (0.4 inches).
Without boundary construction, of course, this is possible.
The terrace is not located at the boundary. This seems like pointless nitpicking without any real sense. If I split it into two parts with a 1 cm (0.4 inch) gap, is that allowed, but not otherwise? This must have been thought up by some idiot.
But thank you very much for your well-reasoned response.
But thank you very much for your well-reasoned response.
Payday schrieb:
The terrace is not located on the boundary line. We had similar discussions. The carport is situated on the boundary line, so it is considered privileged as a carport only. If you build a terrace on top of it, it loses this status and must comply with the required setback distances. At least, this is how it is regulated in North Rhine-Westphalia. One solution would be to divide the carport in the middle: then 3 meters (10 feet) on the boundary line remain privileged, and the second part with a 3-meter (10-foot) setback, where you can build a terrace. Alternatively, you could attach the terrace directly to your house; then it is not related to the carport.
Payday schrieb:
The carport will be positioned next to the house so that it extends 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) towards the garden at the back. (privacy screen/windbreak, etc.) The idea was to make the last 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) wider than the 6 meters (19.7 feet) and thus partially cover the terrace (see paint sketch). The good news might be that, according to your sketch (and a ridge height H presumably under 12 meters (39.4 feet)? – in Schleswig-Holstein, is the required setback half of H?), the distances from the "balcony" are actually maintained here, since the balcony also protrudes to the rear (the house itself is also on the same 6-meter (19.7 feet) setback line, which probably results from the width of the double carport).
THIS could actually be the deciding factor for a positive approval by the building authority, but it doesn’t have to be, as mentioned above. Therefore, it is better to check in advance and/or possibly support the balcony separately on stilts.
Sorry guys, I think there has been some confusion here.
We do NOT want to put anything ON TOP of the carport (e.g., a roof terrace), but rather extend the carport at the back of the house, turning the roof around the corner (see sketch on page 1, post 1). We only want to cover the terrace at ground level. To be clear: we do NOT want a balcony!
I have already called the building authority. Up to 3 meters (10 feet) in depth, there are no objections (no application needed), but anything beyond that would require a permit (which would just be a formality). Tomorrow, I’ll call the district office again, where someone is familiar with the exact regulations. We originally planned to extend 3.5 meters (11.5 feet), but I think we will stay at 3 meters (10 feet).
We do NOT want to put anything ON TOP of the carport (e.g., a roof terrace), but rather extend the carport at the back of the house, turning the roof around the corner (see sketch on page 1, post 1). We only want to cover the terrace at ground level. To be clear: we do NOT want a balcony!
I have already called the building authority. Up to 3 meters (10 feet) in depth, there are no objections (no application needed), but anything beyond that would require a permit (which would just be a formality). Tomorrow, I’ll call the district office again, where someone is familiar with the exact regulations. We originally planned to extend 3.5 meters (11.5 feet), but I think we will stay at 3 meters (10 feet).
Similar topics