Balcony on garage on boundary

  • Erstellt am 2015-10-18 11:28:14

DG

2015-10-19 01:33:36
  • #1


In NRW this is only possible via a building encumbrance. Some federal states do it differently, but in NRW the "neighborhood consent declaration" is completely worthless in this respect or is obtained through the building encumbrance. In these cases, the building encumbrance is not a "should," but a clear "must."



In my opinion, that is possible.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe
 

FrankH

2015-10-19 02:13:37
  • #2

Search on Google for "Hinweise zu §§6 und 73 Bauordnung NRW". There it states in the note to paragraph 11.1.1 that the privilege for the entire building lapses if even a part is used differently.
Then follows a clear sentence on the subject:
 

MarcWen

2015-10-19 09:36:17
  • #3


Of course

A garage is simply part of the building structure, and a terrace on the garage simply means 3 meters more frontage on the plot.
 

Otus11

2015-10-19 15:21:10
  • #4


I agree with that.

To the OP in #1:
The required boundary distance for the cantilevered balcony is then not 3m (at best at least 3m...).
The distance should generally be based on the height H of the (residential) building in NRW, then the factor, depending on the location, namely 0.8; 0.5 or 0.25 H.. (§ 6 Abs. 5 Bauordnung NRW - or the specific development plan says something completely different).
 

DG

2015-10-19 22:30:41
  • #5


Yes, that is what I deal with professionally every day.

You have to read that differently in this context, because it refers to a (partial) use of the roof area that is located outside (!), as you will additionally find in the NRW explanations, for example:



In plain language, this means that a boundary garage 3m wide, which for example is only used as an open seating area for 1m, loses its entire privilege. This results in not only a 1m deep easement burden on the neighboring property but a 3m deep easement.

As long as you stay within, meaning the open seating area has a 3m boundary setback, this regulation does not apply. Instead of the open seating area with a 3m boundary setback, you could also build an enclosed living space without it needing to be secured by an easement or affecting the privilege of the boundary garage.

If it were otherwise, I would have to be seriously mistaken.

The trick with the balcony without contact above the boundary garage instead of an open seating area on the garage also precisely solves this problem: if you build a terrace door as access on the garage with, for example, 1m paving, the privilege of the entire garage is gone. If you build the balcony on the house without contact to the garage below, the balcony can protrude 1.50m from the house wall. This is somewhat paradoxical but correct.



0.25 applies, to my knowledge, only in commercial areas, but the value can be reached with narrow side privilege, which may now be applied on all sides in NRW, even in 0.5 areas. However, this leads relatively quickly to almost absurd building heights because with a 1m parapet height, the upper edge of the floor where the balcony is attached could be at 11m (3.0m / 0.25 = 12m). This corresponds at a floor height of 2.90m to at least the second upper floor, at 2.75m already the third upper floor, which almost necessarily results in a 4-story, rather 5-story building or a cantilevering roof terrace of a 3- to 4-story building with at least 14m total height. In other words: this rules out normal residential areas, may only occur in extreme hillside locations and small plots and/or in inner-city areas.

With the 3m, you already get quite far in practice; only when the building body becomes longer than 16m does the narrow side privilege fall away for the part of the building that exceeds the 16m, and then the building body must retreat more than 3m in this area. But those are really massive structures – whoever places this privately for sole use can also afford 1m more plot.

Even in 0.8/0.4 areas there is still enough leeway; 3m is easily sufficient for 1-2 family houses.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe
 

FrankH

2015-10-20 01:21:34
  • #6


Then we do agree after all, that's how I described it too. In my entire first post here in the thread, I always referred to a privileged building structure at the boundary. The 3m I mentioned referred only to the terrace built on it. Your additional paragraph about the garage with the correct boundary distance is clear, that is undisputed.
 

Similar topics
06.07.2011Garage directly attached to single-family house. Is the foundation sufficient?20
14.09.2012House financing - house, garage, and foundation slab approx. 290,000 EUR11
08.04.2015Install a technical room in the garage? Is this possible?35
19.08.2013Garage heating. What is the best / cheapest solution?10
15.10.2015No construction, as there is no building obligation62
17.06.2015Is a building load possible despite designation?18
08.10.2015Registering a building obligation for a garage - advantages / disadvantages?15
17.05.2016Boundary construction garage and shed max. 9 meters - no more possible?20
07.03.2017The neighbor's terrace borders the garage11
11.10.2018Building without a basement - carport, garage?18
12.03.2019Disadvantage of a building encumbrance in our specific case?25
09.07.2020Register a building burden retroactively on your own property?13
07.09.2020Space between garage and neighbor26
21.06.2021Avoid building obligations by alternative placement of the construction project?17
20.10.2021Alignment of house and garage on the property18
22.07.2023Is a separate garage cheaper?26
12.08.2023Should the garage be flush with the house or set back?23
26.03.2025Orientation of single-family house + garage on west-east plot with street on the west18
20.05.2025Garage, carport with bicycle shed - land planning22

Oben