Hello everyone,
We are at the beginning of our house planning and we like hipped roofs.
The development plan (for a weekend area) allows only 75 m² (807 ft²) of footprint and a maximum roof pitch of 30 degrees on the main roof surfaces.
Does anyone know of a tool that allows planning how large the surfaces of a hipped roof can be for a given footprint and roof pitch? For the trapezoidal sides of the hipped roof (south-facing), I would like to use the maximum 30-degree pitch, as I want to install photovoltaic panels there (positioned on east/south/west sides).
I hope an online tool could give me a better idea of how big the roof surfaces might be, as I want to calculate how many (or how few) photovoltaic panels could fit, and whether the combination of a hipped roof and a photovoltaic system even makes sense for a small footprint.
A few more details:
Footprint: approximately 9 x 8 m (9 m (30 ft) on the trapezoidal side of the roof)
Slope: planned as a full story, a garden level, and a basement
South-facing orientation
Free of shading
Additional planned surfaces for solar modules with a double carport (also free of shading) and possibly a garden shed
We are at the beginning of our house planning and we like hipped roofs.
The development plan (for a weekend area) allows only 75 m² (807 ft²) of footprint and a maximum roof pitch of 30 degrees on the main roof surfaces.
Does anyone know of a tool that allows planning how large the surfaces of a hipped roof can be for a given footprint and roof pitch? For the trapezoidal sides of the hipped roof (south-facing), I would like to use the maximum 30-degree pitch, as I want to install photovoltaic panels there (positioned on east/south/west sides).
I hope an online tool could give me a better idea of how big the roof surfaces might be, as I want to calculate how many (or how few) photovoltaic panels could fit, and whether the combination of a hipped roof and a photovoltaic system even makes sense for a small footprint.
A few more details:
Footprint: approximately 9 x 8 m (9 m (30 ft) on the trapezoidal side of the roof)
Slope: planned as a full story, a garden level, and a basement
South-facing orientation
Free of shading
Additional planned surfaces for solar modules with a double carport (also free of shading) and possibly a garden shed
G
gerrygerd20 Feb 2025 23:13hanghaus2023 schrieb:
Is the long side facing south?The location is perfectly oriented to the south—only a 2-degree deviation. Therefore, I had the idea to make the trapezoidal sides a bit larger to better take advantage of the southern orientation. That’s why I looked in the third photo at what would happen if the ridge and thus the trapezoidal surface were a bit wider. This would result in the east and west sides being steeper. I suspect this could positively affect the yield during transition periods (autumn/spring), as the sun is at a lower angle during these seasons. However, maybe it doesn’t make sense to design the roof geometry primarily around the photovoltaic system… or perhaps what I’m imagining isn’t technically feasible...?
A hip roof is generally more expensive on average.
The south-facing side is often overestimated. With an east-west orientation, you get a more consistent output throughout the day without necessarily needing storage—your peak power is lower, yes, but you have more usable sunlight hours.
Higher peak power also means the inverter and storage system must handle larger power surges at once, which increases the cost of the system. Needing more storage also leads to higher storage losses.
At 30° (30 degrees), the area between the eaves and the ridge is at least 4.50m (15 feet) long, so if you switch to a crosswise orientation, you can fit at least one more module.
A basement is significantly more expensive than above-ground storage space. But only if you have the budget for it.
Are you sure? No knee wall at all? That would be unusually strict. Does it explicitly state this, or does it simply say there is no knee wall and that only one full story is allowed? Often, a knee wall results automatically from the maximum eaves height, roof pitch, and ridge height without knee walls being specifically mentioned.
The south-facing side is often overestimated. With an east-west orientation, you get a more consistent output throughout the day without necessarily needing storage—your peak power is lower, yes, but you have more usable sunlight hours.
Higher peak power also means the inverter and storage system must handle larger power surges at once, which increases the cost of the system. Needing more storage also leads to higher storage losses.
At 30° (30 degrees), the area between the eaves and the ridge is at least 4.50m (15 feet) long, so if you switch to a crosswise orientation, you can fit at least one more module.
A basement is significantly more expensive than above-ground storage space. But only if you have the budget for it.
Are you sure? No knee wall at all? That would be unusually strict. Does it explicitly state this, or does it simply say there is no knee wall and that only one full story is allowed? Often, a knee wall results automatically from the maximum eaves height, roof pitch, and ridge height without knee walls being specifically mentioned.
Tolentino schrieb:
That would be unusually strict.What do you expect? It is a weekend house area, so a recreational zone. In my opinion, garden levels refer to the mentioned basement floors; there is no possibility for another basement below.
The only reasonable option is a pitched roof, so that living space can be created underneath.
Back around the turn of the millennium, I visited a "garden house" here in Berlin that felt larger than my own home. Anyway, eight of us stayed there overnight, and I had a room to myself while the others stayed as couples in separate rooms. It had an upper floor and a basement. So, regulations don’t always have to be overly restrictive. Today, of course, things look different here. But back then, I was still paying 260 EUR gross cold rent for my 50m² (540ft²) apartment, and you could buy a 1000m² (12,000ft²) plot in my current neighborhood for 50,000 EUR.
However, I find such extreme restrictions on using the upper floor quite pointless anyway. If the allowed height is already permitted, I don’t understand why they won’t allow a vertical wall. The view is gone anyway, and the shadow is still there.
However, I find such extreme restrictions on using the upper floor quite pointless anyway. If the allowed height is already permitted, I don’t understand why they won’t allow a vertical wall. The view is gone anyway, and the shadow is still there.
H
hanghaus202321 Feb 2025 07:33gerrygerd schrieb:
That would mean the east and west sides would be steeper. Maximum roof pitch is 30 degrees; nothing steeper is allowed.
Here are some photos from the neighbor.
He has covered all four roof surfaces, but with less roof pitch.
Similar topics