§34 in relation to the development plan; Definition of the immediate surroundings

Hello everyone,

we are currently planning the construction of an urban villa (2 full floors, hipped roof) on a plot in Teltow-Fläming (Brandenburg) in the unplanned inner area according to §34. The opposite side of the street is already within the scope of a development plan.

Perhaps you can help me with an assessment:
According to §34, the permissibility depends on the "immediate surroundings". On our side of the street (without a development plan) there are mainly single-story bungalows with hipped roofs – also directly next to our plot. About 80 m further down the same street there is an urban villa with a hipped roof, and further along the street there are more similar urban villas.

Overall, the street is very heterogeneously built: single-family houses (1 to 1.5 floors), semi-detached houses, urban villas with 2 full floors, various roof types (gable, hip and hipped roofs) – so everything is represented.

On the opposite side (development plan area) mainly semi-detached houses and 1.5-story single-family houses with gable roofs are planned.

The municipality informed us in a non-binding conversation that our project should basically not pose a problem as long as the urban villa does not "completely stand out" – for example, is not the only building of this type in the area.
However, the building application will ultimately not be decided by the municipality, but by the district.

I have the following questions about this:

[*]Who ultimately decides on the integration according to §34 – the municipality or the district (as the building supervisory authority)?
[*]How is the “immediate surroundings” delineated in practice? Does a similar urban villa at a distance of 80 m still count as comparative development?
[*]We are planning a distance of 3.5 m from the street. The direct neighbors have a distance of 10–14 m, but some other houses in the street (outside the development plan) also have only 3–4 m distance – but 100–200 m away. On the opposite side (in the development plan) even smaller distances are partly planned.
How strongly does this aspect factor into the assessment of integration?

I would be very grateful for your assessments or experiences with similar situations!

Where is an aerial photo showing the surroundings? Also up to 80m away. Without that, little can be said about it.

Insertion requirement
According to the insertion requirement under § 34 BauGB, building projects in areas without a development plan may only be approved if they fit into the character of the immediate surroundings. This means that new buildings must be designed in terms of their size, shape, height, design, and use so that they visually and functionally integrate into the existing buildings. This serves to protect the urban appearance and to avoid disproportionate impacts on local residents.

Where is an aerial photo showing the surroundings? Even up to 80m away. Without that, one can say little about it.

I have created a map (see picture) with the corresponding types of houses and the distance between our house and the nearest city villa. I hope this helps.

I have created a map (see picture) with the corresponding house types and the distance between our house and the nearest city villa. I hope this helps.

And now the whole thing again, without hiding the buildings under the points, then it helps.

1. Who ultimately decides about the insertion according to §34 – the municipality or the district (as the building supervisory authority)? 2. How is the "immediate surroundings" defined in practice? Does a similar city villa 80 m away still count as comparable development?

The district decides, but it often follows the vote of the municipal building authority.

3. We plan with a distance of 3.5 m to the street. The direct neighbors have a distance of 10–14 m, but some other houses on the street (outside the development plan) also have only 3–4 m distance – however 100–200 m away. On the opposite side (in the development plan) even smaller distances are partly planned. How much does this aspect influence the assessment of insertion?

The neighborhood within the scope of a (different) development plan does not count at all in the assessment, no matter how close. A "de facto building envelope" of neighboring development in the also unplanned area often weighs more heavily than hoped. The definition of surroundings is vague, and as a rule of thumb it is advisable to cautiously assume it more broadly for the buildings that set the scale, but not to bring the examples that argue for exemptions in from too far away. A locally familiar architect regularly gains more concessions than "one from the city." In TF (commuter belt of B, more or less spitting distance behind the city "wall") one could be sensitive/defensive against invaders from the capital.

I didn’t want to hide anything :) ...except for the roof shapes, however, little can be seen in the aerial photograph.

has already mentioned it. In my opinion, that is your building window.