Abnormal parking space regulation - legal action or ignore?

The areas were then constructed as grass grids – looks just as green as before. If no English flower garden is planned in the front yard, that really shouldn’t be a problem.

I told you. Just some posts earlier. ;)

Service phase 1 basic evaluation ;-)

That would occur to me too. Only presumably the specification sheet states at least 200m2.
I would delete the last sentence in brackets.

In the extreme case, I would actually sue against it.

Costs a lot with no prospect of success.

When I look at the parking situation here, I wish for such a statute.

For a family of three with one car, I already find 5 very many, regardless of whether the space in front of the garage counts or not...

But for a family of three, a 200 sqm place is also very big. If a fourth comes, in 18 years there will already be 4 cars in front of the door + visitors. That’s why I find the idea from the office quite good.

That’s exactly what I know from our previous terraced housing estate. When we moved in in 2001, mostly young families, 2 parking spaces were okay. 16 years later, the children suddenly had their own cars but still lived in the parents’ house. 4 cars per terraced house were not uncommon. Everything was parked up. That was clearly too short-sighted planning. 1 parking space per 50 sqm living space I do not find exaggerated at all. The municipality cannot rely on it staying at 2 vehicles. With enclosed parking spaces, experience shows that people prefer to park on the street rather than block themselves in. A public parking space on the street costs the municipality money and flexibility in design. Buying out of the parking space requirement is not a direct gain for the municipality.

It’s crazy when you consider that we want to avoid sealing [surfaces] in Germany.

I think so too – although the necessity of many sealed parking spaces on public ground is reduced by the statute. If the municipality acts prudently here and provides few public parking spaces in the residential area, it will work out again. Whoever wants luxury also bears the costs. The allocation principle fits. I find the statute completely fine.

Parking spaces in front of the garage are only practical if they are used exclusively by visitors. If someone is always standing there and almost every day a car has to be moved to allow the other one to drive, it becomes annoying. The result will therefore be that the cars are parked on the street, where they are not supposed to be. The painstakingly created front garden is rarely voluntarily changed again because it is assumed that the children will be out of the house in a few years anyway and the problem will have resolved itself. In our street, there are also few parking spaces. However, that is not a problem at all because everyone here owns two parking spaces (with the driveways, sometimes even 3-4). When I recently had to move our car because the [Carport] was being renovated, I was allowed to park 150m away because the few parking spaces on the street were all occupied. That was no problem for that case, but I do not necessarily want to do that every day.

Often the streets are so parked up that the snowplow gets stuck - that's why there is the same notice every year: as soon as the winter service can no longer turn into the street or is prevented from passing by parked cars, no clearing will take place that day. Garbage trucks also regularly get stuck. And these are not small streets where a car has to move onto the sidewalk to make way for oncoming traffic.

I see it at our place: 2 garage parking spaces and 3 parking spaces in front are quickly full when no one is allowed to park on the street. We simply have the luxury of being able to also use the parking spaces of the town hall and the doctor's office in the evening and on weekends. There are often cars from us parked there.

Thank you very much for the many responses; I can hardly keep up with reacting. Therefore, here are some summarized feedbacks on frequently mentioned points.

Parking spaces in front of the garage are impractical / not used, etc.:
We have 1 car and 2 parking spaces in the garage and in front of it. There will never be a need to move cars around. We are not car enthusiasts! We want to stick with one car. We want to spend just under 800,000 EUR on a house and have a 10-year-old Seat Leon. We are not car people. That will never become reality for us.

In 20 years, this could look very different:
Futures research shows that in 20 years, people will probably hardly own their own cars anymore. Our children will probably never get a driver's license because cars will be self-driving. In an app, you will then press a button, and the car will come out of a hangar or from somewhere else and stop in front of your house. After use, it will disappear again to the next user. The future is mobility as a service, not everyone owning their own car. Futurists largely agree on this. So why should I build 7 parking spaces for a scenario that most likely will never happen? That is old-fashioned and focused on the past.

200m² is large:
That’s true. We are both employed and work nearly 100% of the time from home office. Therefore, we need 2 large office rooms, so an additional approx. 35m² is required for the home office. We have also planned a second children's room as a buffer. Otherwise, I would not describe our planned house as unusual (2 children's rooms, 1 living/dining/kitchen area, 1 bedroom, 2 offices). I have also posted the floor plan in this subforum for floor plan planning; I will try tonight to see if I can somehow paste it here.

Chances of success in the legal process:
A few months ago, I talked to a lawyer specialized in building law about this. His statement was that establishing parking space requirements must allow reasonable discretion; otherwise, it would be per se invalid. This is done in the current statute by allowing exemption permits upon application. So if we apply for an exemption permit and it is rejected, according to the lawyer, this would not be reasonable discretion, since in the specific situation, 7 parking spaces are not reasonable (the real need is based on people and cars and not on the living area, which is only a proxy). Therefore, the lawyer was convinced that we would very likely be successful legally. However, we would have to bear the costs ourselves (although we have legal expenses insurance, it does not cover this). I am therefore very surprised that you all see this so negatively here because I heard something quite different from the lawyer.

Site plan:
I can provide it tonight. It is a corner plot. The garage is adjacent to neighboring development. The garage is 6m long and 7.5m wide and 6m away from the street. Thus, the driveway in front of the garage is also 6m x 7.5m. The house is 5m away from the street. There is a hedge at the property boundary, so according to current planning, there is about 4m distance between the front door and the hedge.

General parking situation:
I currently live in a large city and know the congested streets very well; for my current place of residence, I would wish for something like this too. But on the property, that is definitely not an issue. At the property boundary alone, there are 5 public parking spaces, of which at least 4 are almost always free, usually all! There are also plenty of free public parking spaces on other properties. The surrounding houses all also have double garages and 2 parking spaces in front. Even if everyone parked 2 extra cars on the street, there would still be enough space. This area is simply very spacious, and the plots are all about 1000m² in size.

Planning progress:
Replanning is possible without extra costs. However, we want to build what we really need and want, not any “makeshift solutions.” Therefore, my approach is to see how we can best get what we want through. We are moving to the countryside because we want nature and not to pave everything over.