ᐅ Questions Regarding the Interpretation of Section 34 of the Building Code
Created on: 2 Sep 2019 19:45
S
Schlenk-Bär
We have purchased a plot of land to build a single-family house. There used to be some old buildings on the property, which have now been demolished. We are currently focusing intensively on planning the house. There is no local land-use plan (building plan / planning permission) for the plot, so according to the responsible building authority, Section 34 of the German Building Code applies. I have read the legal text several times but did not gain much clarity, so I searched for interpretation aids... to say the least, it’s quite complex. I hope someone here in the forum can help us with our questions.
In the attached image below, our plot is outlined in red. There are land-use plans (building plans / planning permissions) for the two red areas. Section 34 states that a project is permissible if it aligns with the character of the immediate surroundings in terms of the type and extent of land use, building method, and the area of the plot to be built on, and if access infrastructure is secured.
What does this actually mean for our project? Should we orient ourselves according to the land-use plan on the right side? That would be a row of terraced houses standing perpendicular to the street, with houses arranged behind them. Or should we follow the three houses on the left side? Can three houses really be considered a coherent building context? Or the houses on the opposite side of the street?
How far from the street would we need to build our house? We definitely want to build farther from the street than the neighbors on the left side. What would be the best way to argue this? Could it help that an old building, which we have now demolished, was roughly in the center of the plot?
Thank you very much for your help.
In the attached image below, our plot is outlined in red. There are land-use plans (building plans / planning permissions) for the two red areas. Section 34 states that a project is permissible if it aligns with the character of the immediate surroundings in terms of the type and extent of land use, building method, and the area of the plot to be built on, and if access infrastructure is secured.
What does this actually mean for our project? Should we orient ourselves according to the land-use plan on the right side? That would be a row of terraced houses standing perpendicular to the street, with houses arranged behind them. Or should we follow the three houses on the left side? Can three houses really be considered a coherent building context? Or the houses on the opposite side of the street?
How far from the street would we need to build our house? We definitely want to build farther from the street than the neighbors on the left side. What would be the best way to argue this? Could it help that an old building, which we have now demolished, was roughly in the center of the plot?
Thank you very much for your help.
Yes, that looks great. At first, I thought you were planning to build right up to the front building line.
If you now turn off the background map in the Sachsenatlas at the top right and, at the bottom in the map content section 01/14 Administration, check the box for the ALKIS comprehensive layer, omit the actual building boundaries, and put a bit more effort into your house and garage, you’ll have the perfect site plan for your preliminary discussion. Add a few words about your parking space planning and the traffic situation on the access road—who could say "no" then?
If you now turn off the background map in the Sachsenatlas at the top right and, at the bottom in the map content section 01/14 Administration, check the box for the ALKIS comprehensive layer, omit the actual building boundaries, and put a bit more effort into your house and garage, you’ll have the perfect site plan for your preliminary discussion. Add a few words about your parking space planning and the traffic situation on the access road—who could say "no" then?
S
Schlenk-Bär10 Sep 2019 05:54As always, thank you for your efforts.
Hello?! Put a little more effort.... what is that supposed to mean now? I guess I’m not making any effort with that miserable § 34.
Escroda schrieb:
and put a little more effort into your house and garage,
Hello?! Put a little more effort.... what is that supposed to mean now? I guess I’m not making any effort with that miserable § 34.
S
Schlenk-Bär10 Sep 2019 06:06Escroda schrieb:
leaving out the actual building boundaries Overall, or just the ones on the right side? I thought the actual boundaries, as you had drawn earlier, were an important argument? How else can I explain the increase from 4 m (13 feet) to 10 m (33 feet) distance from the sidewalk?
Escroda schrieb:
you have the perfect site plan for your preliminary discussion. Why exactly now?
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
I’m not going to bother with that miserable § 34. Well then: Unfortunately lost.
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
Overall or just on the right side? No, all of it.
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
I thought the actual boundaries, like the ones you drew earlier, were an important argument? Yes, they are—for the permitting authority, though. First of all, §903 of the Building Code applies:
The owner of a property can deal with it ... as they please and exclude others from interfering.
You can do whatever you want on or with your property. Unfortunately, there is more after those three dots:
, unless laws or third-party rights oppose it,
So the authority has to look for laws or third-party rights that oppose your project. In your case, this could be §34 paragraph 1 of the Building Code:
... and the area of the property to be developed ...
You don’t have to find building boundaries that your project fits into; rather, the authority has to find ones where it doesn’t fit. Why debate actual building boundaries if maybe none are seen there?
You only have to justify anything if you want to deviate from regulations or if you disagree with the authority’s reasons for rejection.
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
Why now exactly? Because if you bothered to make the effort, it would be immediately clear what you are planning. If there were objections, they could be explained right on the plan, and you would know what to focus on when submitting the building permit / planning permission. The better the site plan, the less likely misunderstandings become.
S
Schlenk-Bär14 Oct 2019 20:05So, there is an update. As the clients, we did not contact the building authority ourselves regarding § 34 of the Building Code. After consulting with the architect, he took over and submitted a written inquiry. The outcome is currently causing us some concern. I will quote the key points:
“The project plot is located within the developed area according to § 34 of the Building Code. Therefore, projects are permitted under planning law if they correspond in type and extent of structural use, construction method, and the portion of the plot to be developed to the character of the immediate surroundings and if access is secured.
The immediate surroundings here are the buildings on plots xxxx (this refers to the three buildings on the street to the left). The buildings to the right (the terraced house) and further east cannot be considered, as they are within the scope of a development plan.
The proposed location of the building on the plot does not fit into the immediate surroundings. The actual front building line was not followed, nor was the building depth of the main uses adhered to.
Regarding the permissibility of the number of floors, I cannot provide information, as an on-site inspection is required.”
After the architect’s further inquiry:
“The building supervision authority is a reviewing body.
It examines specific projects upon request, which architects and authorized engineers consider planning law compliant.
If individual aspects of the planning law compliance of specific projects are seen as critical, the option to apply for a preliminary building permit is available.
Under no circumstances does the building supervision authority dictate to architects and engineers commissioned with planning specific projects what fits on the building plot. This would contradict the legislator’s intended dual-review principle of assessing planning law compliance.
Please submit the building application with proof of compliance with the integration criteria according to § 34 of the Building Code.”
This does not seem consistent to me. In the first email, the authority states that the building location does not fit into the immediate surroundings. In the second email, it says that the authority does not dictate what fits on the plot?
I find it hard that the authority refers to an actual building line based on three houses. The architect is now considering how to proceed.
“The project plot is located within the developed area according to § 34 of the Building Code. Therefore, projects are permitted under planning law if they correspond in type and extent of structural use, construction method, and the portion of the plot to be developed to the character of the immediate surroundings and if access is secured.
The immediate surroundings here are the buildings on plots xxxx (this refers to the three buildings on the street to the left). The buildings to the right (the terraced house) and further east cannot be considered, as they are within the scope of a development plan.
The proposed location of the building on the plot does not fit into the immediate surroundings. The actual front building line was not followed, nor was the building depth of the main uses adhered to.
Regarding the permissibility of the number of floors, I cannot provide information, as an on-site inspection is required.”
After the architect’s further inquiry:
“The building supervision authority is a reviewing body.
It examines specific projects upon request, which architects and authorized engineers consider planning law compliant.
If individual aspects of the planning law compliance of specific projects are seen as critical, the option to apply for a preliminary building permit is available.
Under no circumstances does the building supervision authority dictate to architects and engineers commissioned with planning specific projects what fits on the building plot. This would contradict the legislator’s intended dual-review principle of assessing planning law compliance.
Please submit the building application with proof of compliance with the integration criteria according to § 34 of the Building Code.”
This does not seem consistent to me. In the first email, the authority states that the building location does not fit into the immediate surroundings. In the second email, it says that the authority does not dictate what fits on the plot?
I find it hard that the authority refers to an actual building line based on three houses. The architect is now considering how to proceed.
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
In the second email, it says that the authority does not specify what fits in on the property? If you read your quotes carefully, the first statement refers to integration into the immediate surroundings, while the second refers to the design on the property itself. As if the architect asked, "How else am I supposed to build this?!".
The building authority is an inspection body.
It reviews specific projects upon application, An inspection body = no free life advice
Reviews specific projects upon application = you do the brainstorming yourself, but not with us
At least it fits the picture.
Similar topics