Hi, we recently bought a plot of land in a new development area in Hesse, and our construction is starting soon.
Regarding our rainwater infiltration system, I asked our future neighbor to send me a house plan (to check the distance to the basement).
However, I noticed that it was actually a planting plan, which needs to be submitted to the authorities together with the building permit / planning permission application.
On it, I saw that he plans to plant a Norway maple quite close to our property line (about 3-4m (10-13 feet) away)!
These trees can already reach 4m (13 feet) in height after 10 years and up to 16m (52 feet) after 20 years, which is almost twice as tall as our houses!
Final height can be up to 35m (115 feet).
Who would want such a huge tree in their own garden?
So far, I haven’t found much information online except that you often have to accept a lot.
According to the building regulations / neighborhood law in Hesse, “very fast-growing avenue and park trees” must maintain a 4m (13 feet) distance from the boundary, and “fast-growing avenue and park trees” only 2m (6.5 feet).
Where does the Norway maple fall in this classification?
Is there anything I can do in advance? For example, can I apply to prevent him from planting it?
I know from my in-laws, who once owned a house and land, that you can’t just do anything you want on your own property. If the neighbor doesn’t agree, it’s not allowed.
I really don’t want such a tree because it would probably block sunlight from my entire garden.
Can I oppose this?
He also wants to plant a Japanese maple between our houses. But there are shrubs that tend to grow more in width than height. I could accept something like that.
I really hope there is a solution.
I don’t want a never-ending neighborhood dispute!
Regarding our rainwater infiltration system, I asked our future neighbor to send me a house plan (to check the distance to the basement).
However, I noticed that it was actually a planting plan, which needs to be submitted to the authorities together with the building permit / planning permission application.
On it, I saw that he plans to plant a Norway maple quite close to our property line (about 3-4m (10-13 feet) away)!
These trees can already reach 4m (13 feet) in height after 10 years and up to 16m (52 feet) after 20 years, which is almost twice as tall as our houses!
Final height can be up to 35m (115 feet).
Who would want such a huge tree in their own garden?
So far, I haven’t found much information online except that you often have to accept a lot.
According to the building regulations / neighborhood law in Hesse, “very fast-growing avenue and park trees” must maintain a 4m (13 feet) distance from the boundary, and “fast-growing avenue and park trees” only 2m (6.5 feet).
Where does the Norway maple fall in this classification?
Is there anything I can do in advance? For example, can I apply to prevent him from planting it?
I know from my in-laws, who once owned a house and land, that you can’t just do anything you want on your own property. If the neighbor doesn’t agree, it’s not allowed.
I really don’t want such a tree because it would probably block sunlight from my entire garden.
Can I oppose this?
He also wants to plant a Japanese maple between our houses. But there are shrubs that tend to grow more in width than height. I could accept something like that.
I really hope there is a solution.
I don’t want a never-ending neighborhood dispute!
F
fach1werk25 May 2017 08:03From my professional experience, I often see that a tree that grows too large eventually has to be removed at the height of its life – and I find that unfortunate! They get cut down (whether replacement planting, planting obligations, or tree protection orders apply, that all needs to be sorted out), for example
- if an elderly woman becomes afraid of burglars, or
- if the gardeners get too old and can only manage to mow the lawn anymore, or
- if the successor of the builder feels there is too little light, or
- if the tree’s roots reach the sewage pipes, or
- if the tree lifts the access path, and so on.
Relying on someone wanting to prune a tree against its natural growth pattern and height is problematic. Large common species are often less expensive than smaller cultivars. I believe that a tree is a living being and should be chosen—also considering the investment—so that both the tree and the people can live together well for a long time. Whoever is listed in the land register probably couldn’t care less about the tree.
Hopefully, it won’t have to become a large tree on demand.
Best regards, Gabriele
- if an elderly woman becomes afraid of burglars, or
- if the gardeners get too old and can only manage to mow the lawn anymore, or
- if the successor of the builder feels there is too little light, or
- if the tree’s roots reach the sewage pipes, or
- if the tree lifts the access path, and so on.
Relying on someone wanting to prune a tree against its natural growth pattern and height is problematic. Large common species are often less expensive than smaller cultivars. I believe that a tree is a living being and should be chosen—also considering the investment—so that both the tree and the people can live together well for a long time. Whoever is listed in the land register probably couldn’t care less about the tree.
Hopefully, it won’t have to become a large tree on demand.
Best regards, Gabriele
Alex85 schrieb:
For example, prefabricated garages are prohibited,Such unreasonable restrictions can jeopardize an entire development plan. Nonsense to the third power: prefabricated garages come in the same volumes (also with pitched roofs, if desired) and facade designs as site-built garages. They are not inherently a different category.Nordlys schrieb:
Our municipality always accommodated resettlers and refugees in a decentralized way, mixing them across the area. The result: no ghettos, hardly any problems. [...] Only long-term rentals, no holiday lets. No short-term rentals.I call that inconsistent: even holiday guests are much easier to accommodate socially if they are scattered instead of concentrated in large block accommodations at certain points. By the way, I spent my nicest vacations in guesthouses run by widows whose houses had become too large for them alone. Having guests gave them income, a purpose, life around them, and allowed them to keep their familiar home. If someone does the same with a granny flat: who cares? It only becomes problematic if an entire property is developed as a “party venue” for mass tourism. But that can be regulated just as precisely and effectively as limits on roof pitch.Nordlys schrieb:
Site coverage ratio 0.25. Max 1.5 storeys, no knee walls. Minimum roof pitch 25 percent.That starts out reasonably: site coverage and number of storeys. Together, they are perfectly sufficient without needing to specify a floor area ratio as well. It’s practically already included, preventing any excessive development. But then it gets silly: what matters visually is the eaves height. How far below the eaves the interior floor level runs is irrelevant to outsiders. If I happen to fit a knee wall at the eaves height, no one else should begrudge me for that, since it brings no disadvantage to others. So why ban it? — Just because Mrs. X managed to get her bushes included in the development plan, must Mr. Y also have his knee wall explicitly mentioned?Evolith schrieb:
But I understand your shock. I’m also looking forward to my beautiful sunny lawn.Apart from the fact that the lawn is healthier if you don’t have to overwater it to prevent it from drying out in full sun: I imagine the neighbor of the original poster, from whose perspective the difference between the two garden definitions is only reversed in direction but just as impactful: they also “suffer” from a neighbor who defines “garden” as “a concrete slab with grass.” Just a suggestion for a change in perspective.By the way: if the planting plan includes something “Japanese,” that usually indicates a different concept of garden design rather than the cultivation of giant sequoias. Relax (ommmmm...).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
P.S. (due to edit timeout):
Such points in development plans can simply be removed without replacement: a pyramid roof is basically the result of applying a hip roof to a square floor plan. In that case, the house logically has no axis, and the hip roof’s ridge length is zero in all directions. The fact that it has a different name, like “square” for a rectangle with equal side lengths, does not change the situation.
I agree with @Nordlys: give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and the development plan should include nothing more than necessary. The purpose of it is to regulate the structural coexistence, not to put every garden gnome and every council member’s opinion on the philosopher’s stone into writing.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Nordlys schrieb:
Pyramid roofs are allowed on square floor plans.
Such points in development plans can simply be removed without replacement: a pyramid roof is basically the result of applying a hip roof to a square floor plan. In that case, the house logically has no axis, and the hip roof’s ridge length is zero in all directions. The fact that it has a different name, like “square” for a rectangle with equal side lengths, does not change the situation.
I agree with @Nordlys: give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and the development plan should include nothing more than necessary. The purpose of it is to regulate the structural coexistence, not to put every garden gnome and every council member’s opinion on the philosopher’s stone into writing.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
If the goal of a municipality is to offer plots of land with partly prime lake views at 115 per square meter to allow affordable building for locals in a region with over one million overnight stays per year and corresponding real estate price developments, it is necessary to prevent investors from major cities from misusing these plots for vacation rentals, or even buying them up and covering them with such properties.
The regulation regarding the knee wall seems intended to prevent disguised urban villas. This preserves an architectural style typical for Schleswig-Holstein, featuring gables, brickwork, bungalows, wooden facades—often colorful—red houses have always been common here. It also prevents buildings from being constructed too massively right in front of you. Whether this is a bit over the top? Possibly. From my experience in neighboring municipalities, I welcome the ban on vacation rentals. Karsten
The regulation regarding the knee wall seems intended to prevent disguised urban villas. This preserves an architectural style typical for Schleswig-Holstein, featuring gables, brickwork, bungalows, wooden facades—often colorful—red houses have always been common here. It also prevents buildings from being constructed too massively right in front of you. Whether this is a bit over the top? Possibly. From my experience in neighboring municipalities, I welcome the ban on vacation rentals. Karsten
11ant schrieb:
Such unreasonable restrictions can jeopardize an entire development plan. Nonsense times three, prefabricated garages come in the same volumes (also with pitched roofs, if desired) and exterior designs as on-site built garages. They are not inherently a different category.Whether they exist in indistinguishable quality, I do not know. To my knowledge, I have never actually seen one like that in person (or it was genuinely so high-quality that you couldn’t tell). Such quality is certainly not the reason for a ban.
The issue is the quality that you see in abundance in every new housing development, and it is dreadful. These things have the appearance of plastered shipping containers, and I am glad I won’t have to look at such structures in the future.
Nordlys schrieb:
To allow affordable building for locals, it is necessary to prevent investors from large cities from misusing these plots for short-term holiday rentals, or even buying them up and covering them with such properties. This can be managed more appropriately and less harshly, for example by linking short-term rentals to the condition that the landlord uses 75% of the living area on the same plot as their primary residence.
Alex85 schrieb:
Whether there is an indistinguishable quality, I don’t know. As far as I am aware, I have never seen such a thing in reality (or it was actually so high quality that it was not noticeable). Exactly that: the architecture of a masonry, plastered flat-roof garage is exactly the same as if the unit, with the same external dimensions, is a precast concrete modular room offering more than 20cm (8 inches) additional internal width or, with the same wall thickness, consists of delivered aerated concrete panels. What’s really unpleasant is metal with a stracciatella-pattern coating imitating plaster—I don’t like that either. But this formulation in the development plan is not appropriate—and could cause the entire plan to be rejected.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics