Assessment of building regulations

According to §30, para. 1 of the Building Code, I would classify this, as a layperson, as a qualified plan, since the cited stipulations can be found in the regulations. At least for the area in front of the building boundary of 20m.

However, the area in front of the building boundary is not yours.

Here, however, development of the hinterland outside the actual building window is desired. According to the development plan, nothing is allowed to be built there.

I still don’t quite understand what the matter is, even in the third thread, and what the actual will of the community is. Do they want densification, yes or no? - if yes and there are still a worthwhile number of building gaps, then one should by all means create a development plan for it or amend the existing one; if yes and it’s only about individual building gaps, then of course it would not be worthwhile.

Mnemonic: an authority has discretion within the scope of its responsibility and powers.

However, it must be able to distinguish discretion from arbitrariness, and furthermore observe the principle of binding discretion. Replacing planning law foundations through backroom deals just because one doesn’t feel like drawing up a plan is not acceptable.

The question is how it is with the official separation of the rear property. Does the building depth from the street still apply then, or does paragraph 34 come into effect?

Individual properties are only cut out of development plan areas in special cases. Hence my initial question in this post whether it might make sense to collectively cover the rear building gap plots in a separate development plan. “Cutting out” areas to then subject them to §34 would be neither usual nor would it seem sensible to me.

I never claimed that either.

If a development plan does exist, it would be decisive anyway.

If not, the authority has obviously set uniform standards for possible approval in case of deviation. And it is allowed to do so. Although only as a framework, but it is entitled to do so. Basically, at least.

the building permit for the house on plot A, however, refers to the building regulations of 1985..

A building permit is always issued based on the current building regulations valid at the time of the building application. In 1991, this was apparently the version from 1985. If the planning law applicable to the plot, such as a development plan or other statutes under the Building Code or planning regulations before the BBauG / Land Use Ordinance like boundary line plans or building police regulations, contains provisions that influence the building regulations or are influenced by them, e.g. distances or full floors, then for these provisions the state building regulations at the time of the corresponding statute resolution apply. This is at least the prevailing expert opinion.

There is no concrete official development plan for the plot, but rather these crude and confused mixtures from the 3 ordinances.

It is not just three, and among them are also plans, i.e. graphical representations, without which we are still groping in the dark.
Can a scope of validity be recognized on the land use plan from 1960?
Is your plot located in the scope of validity of the 1960 land use plan?
Is your plot located in the scope of validity of the 1971 development plan?
Then there also seems to be a boundary line plan. Although boundary line plans do not have a scope of validity in the current sense, does it include your plot and does it set anything directly there (line runs over your plot) or indirectly (line at a distance of less than 20m from your plot)?

According to §30, paragraph 1 of the Building Code, I would, as a layperson, classify this as a qualified plan

That may apply to the front neighbors, but according to your previous explanations, none of these plans set the buildable plot area for your plot, which, however, is one of the minimum requirements for the qualification. Therefore, your plot would not be within the scope of a qualified development plan, which would also explain the parentheses around the word "qualified," since this classification only applies to partial areas. The extent of the structural use is also questionable, as the two-story height also only applies to the front neighbors. It is not clear to me which areas the floor area ratio refers to.

What is actually your goal? You have received very clear specifications from the authority. These do not correspond to your wishes. Are you seriously considering planning contrary to the requirements and suing against the expected rejection notice? Because of a knee wall 30cm too low? Because of a dormer instead of a cross gable?
In view of some statements in your threads

Is anything possible with a TH of 4 meters?

A lot of space is simply lost in the rooms

arrow slit

I think the two-story city villa has spread so much in your mind that there is no room for other ideas anymore.

Why exactly? At first glance, I don’t see any contradictions... but it could be due to the time of day.

Well, the Building Code 1958 says that development behind the 20m boundary can be approved, the Building Use Ordinance 1968 says that buildings and building parts must not exceed a fixed building line. Or am I misunderstanding that?

But the area in front of the building boundary is not yours, after all.

Exactly. That’s why there are those unverifiable hinterland conditions that have no legal basis whatsoever.

it’s about a property in the south of Berlin. The surrounding area is already built up and there are only isolated property parts in the rear area that could be used space-wise for building. Accordingly, in my opinion, amending the development plan is not worthwhile. But the question is which conditions then apply in the rear. The hinterland conditions of the building authority, yes. But what are they based on? On the “discretion” of the authority?

I never claimed that either.

If a development plan exists, it would be decisive anyway.

If not, the authority obviously has uniform criteria for possible approval in case of deviation. And it is allowed to do that. Although only as a framework, but that is indeed its right. Fundamentally at least.

The development plan is the BNP in conjunction with the Building Code 1958 and the Building Use Ordinance from whenever. It’s all stated in the first post. And what I’m concerned with is the flexibility of these criteria. How binding are the hinterland conditions if there is no written fixation of these? If I comply with the specified total height of 8.50 m, who is bothered by an eaves height of 4.50 m which, due to a roof overhang, is probably not even visible to the naked eye?

Is your property within the scope of the 1960 Building Use Plan? Yes! Is your property within the scope of the 1971 Development Plan? Yes! While boundary line plans do not have a scope in the modern sense, does yours include your property and directly (line runs over your property) or indirectly (line less than 20m away from your property) set anything? A line runs over the front part of the property without reference to the rear property area or the new boundaries after subdivision.

What is your actual goal? You have received very clear specifications from the authority. These do not correspond to your preferences. Are you seriously considering planning contrary to the conditions and suing against the expected rejection notice? Because of a kneewall height 30 cm too low? Because of a dormer instead of a cross-gable? In view of some statements in your threads, I think the two-story townhouse has established itself so strongly in your mind that there is no room for other ideas.

I would like to contradict that. That we are not allowed to build a two-story townhouse there is perfectly fine with us and was never our goal. It is solely about these ominous hinterland conditions restricting us so much that we “have to” design a house that we do not like. And with all due respect, when investing about €400,000, it is certainly in our interest to build a house that largely corresponds to our ideas. We are aware and know that one can live and work with a low kneewall and that there are practical solutions for this. Nevertheless, trial makes wise, and for this reason I asked here for an assessment.

Grounds for objection to a rejection notice exist first and foremost, and there is no need to file a lawsuit right away. And that is exactly what this is about. If one can effectively object to the rejection notice, it should be possible to find an out-of-court solution. That is my goal! And yes, it is about no less than 50 cm more eaves height.

I have explained it. It is not a matter of discretion, but the assessment of the authority. This must be done without error. It is not possible to judge even roughly from here.

Keep in mind: the objection is usually reviewed by the authority that issued the administrative act. At most, the superior authority. It is worth a try. Possibly have a specialized lawyer write it.

Until then, however, you have already: bought the property, had someone create a building plan including submitting the building application.

Then you still have the option to sue, or to redesign. So you will have to advance money. And massively.

Think about what you want. I say, this is the wrong property for you.