Consent for temporary border construction, is a right of withdrawal necessary?

One should mention that the construction is already completed.
In the area, a simplified building procedure applied, or whatever it is called.
The terrace is now supposed to be approved retroactively.

That already says it all. In the simplified procedure, the terrace is obviously not eligible for approval, so it must be applied for and approved individually. The procedure is determined by the responsible building regulations office, and one should adhere to the schedule.

Hello Dirk Grafe,

why does it always have to be a (negative) building encumbrance?

Could one not suggest pulling the garage up to the border and, depending on the circumstances, shaping a building encumbrance as an extension obligation? This could even have a positive effect by creating additional extension space.

I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding about what a building encumbrance is and what it accomplishes. There are occasional scopes for design, but I believe that in this case it is not possible. Without having reviewed the wording in Saarland down to the last detail, such terraces there, as in other federal states, are obviously considered like living spaces, thus triggering at least a 3m distance area and hence a building encumbrance of about ~2m in this case.

As always at this point – without plans and an on-site inspection, it cannot be conclusively assessed.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

The problem is not that the terrace is so close to the boundary, but that it is on top of the garage and thus the garage including the railing is higher than allowed. In other words, the garage itself wouldn't be a problem, as it was included in the building plan. Now, due to the terrace and the necessary railing, the garage as a whole becomes higher than permitted, and therefore the building encumbrance. From my point of view, in the event of a revocation, only the railing would have to be removed and the terrace would officially no longer be allowed to be used due to the risk of falling. Or would it still be allowed to be accessed at one's own risk? I am allowed to climb on my roof as well...

Of course, all just guesswork without knowing the details.

And there is no fundamental misunderstanding here. Unless my house construction was a misunderstanding. Admittedly, I am a layman in construction law, but I know what helped us get our house.

On our neighboring property, a house stands turned away from us. This neighbor has built a second house set back to the rear and directly on our property.

According to your words, this would trigger a setback area on our property.

But we have built exactly there. How is that possible?

Because at that time, no setback area easement was registered, but rather an obligation to attach easement.

This is probably how it happens every day with every semi-detached house.

Why can't something like that be done with a terrace on a garage as well?

Put your own garage next to it if needed and also a terrace on top. Of course, only if it can somehow be legally represented.

Whether legally possible or not, there is zero interest...

Build your own garage next to it if needed and also a terrace on top. Of course, only if it is somehow legally feasible.

It might be possible, but I believe no building authority would agree to such an extension obligation unless the corresponding building applications are submitted at the same time.

The problem is not that the terrace is so close to the border, but that it is on top of the garage and thus the garage including railing is higher than allowed. In other words, the garage itself would not be a problem, as it was also included in the building plan. Now, because of the terrace and the necessary railing, the garage as a whole is higher than permitted and therefore the building encumbrance applies. From my point of view, in case of revocation, only the railing would have to be removed, and the terrace should no longer be used officially due to the risk of falling. Or would it still be allowed to enter it at your own risk? I am allowed to climb on my roof, after all...

Sort of. In NRW, the terrace requires a 3m distance area AND a 5m clearance area (building encumbrance). In the clearance area (building encumbrance), definitely ... nothing ... may be built or present.

If it is dismantled upon revocation, you would of course be allowed to enter the terrace for maintenance, otherwise not.

The simplest solution here is to submit the building application or ask the case officer how he imagines the approval.

Whether legally possible or not, there is zero interest in that...

Then the whole thread is pointless. Of course, it can only be about legally possible considerations.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

I think the last sentence from Peanuts referred to whether one can/wants/is allowed to build a terrace oneself.

It’s a bit like "Wash me, but don’t get me wet."