Construction of the passenger car parking space

However, I assume that the parking space, if it is indeed not exempt from approval and the construction is not covered by the present building permit, would itself still be approvable. That means I might still have to obtain the building permit.

I don't quite understand: is it about a parking space whose creation was not a condition for the house building permit?

At some point in the short/medium term, he will no longer be capable of managing or will no longer be here!

I wouldn’t bet on a biological solution here: whoever can still climb ladders at over 80 years old will make Death wait a long time.

: If I understood correctly, the parking space was included in the building permit. However, it was later found that the area for the parking space must be filled up by up to 70cm to obtain a level parking space that does not slope away from the street. In Thuringia, according to Google, fillings up to 2m and up to 30sqm are procedure-free. Initially, the dimensions were 3-4m x 13m sloping away from the street, then it was "recalculated" and the dimensions are now 3-3.5m x 10m because the first 3m no longer need to be filled up.

As a variant, apparently "What do I care about regulations if they restrict me" was chosen.

If I understood correctly, the parking space was included in the building permit.

As far as it concerns a necessary parking space – meaning not a third one where only two are required – I see it as having been examined in terms of qualification (i.e. size and location) and thus approved; consequently, if it must be accessible from the street by its own means without steps (i.e. this edge must be correspondingly "barrier-free"), I also see the space approved together with the necessary terrain modifications on the street-facing side. Alternatively, drainage could also be installed immediately at the neighbor's boundary – so the question would be: which of these was drawn. I thus see a parking space as "proven" at the earliest through a drawn location and size of its area (with measurements), and it must be usable there without external equipment – if necessary through height or tilt adjustment of its platform. Based on the verbal sketch of the location in post #1, I imagine the situation as follows: with the narrow side facing the street and after 13 m length in this area is already the boundary to the indicated neighbor; the slope also points in this direction. If my spatial understanding is correct, I do not see a terrain elevation at this edge as the most plausible solution, but rather a channel immediately before the border crossing for the water.

As a variant, apparently "Why should I care about regulations if they restrict me" has now been chosen.

Dear Mike, I initially stated the size of the strip to describe the situation. Indeed, the property naturally starts at street level, as it should. Therefore, it is true that the filling is not necessary along the entire length. If this is understood as "bending the rules," as I gather from the rather biting comment, then I hope this has clarified it.

As far as it concerns a necessary parking space – so not a third one where only two are required – I see it as checked and thus approved in terms of qualification (i.e., size and location); consequently, if it must be accessible from the street without steps to allow it to be reached on its own wheels (so this edge must run "barrier-free" accordingly), I therefore also consider the space together with the necessary terrain modifications on the side facing away from the street as approved.

According to the verbal sketch of the location in post #1, I imagine the situation as follows: with the narrow side adjoining the street and then after 13 m length in this area already the border to the mentioned neighbor; the slope also points in this direction. If my spatial assumption is correct, I see no terrain elevation at this edge as the most obvious solution, but rather a channel immediately before the water crosses the boundary.

The opinion stated here – and yes, these are the necessary parking spaces included in the building permit and at the positions indicated in the corresponding drawings – is also shared by my construction manager. That is why he also sees it as pointless to consider whether we now raise 29 or 35 m². When we discussed the design, I completely relied on him at this point, I admit that. I therefore had not considered that an additional building permit might be necessary, since the parking spaces were approved together with the house.

Regarding the second part: Yes, this spatial assumption is correct. As for the obvious solution of collecting the water at the end of the slope, I would have preferred this, as it would have been decisively more favorable. However, the rainwater must be discharged into the rainwater sewer, and it lies on the street and at such a shallow depth that even the connection for the house was just barely possible. Alternatively, I could have let everything flow onto my 100 m² garden/lawn... maybe not such a great idea either.

otherwise I have to try whether I can manage a sketch.

You don’t have to. Just show all approved building documents where the parking spaces are clearly visible.

The building permit contains no details on the execution of the parking spaces.

Exactly that is now your problem. The building documents are too vague. I suspect your draftsman entered the parking spaces without elevation details in the site plan and/or ground floor plan. Thus, they are approved there, but if no changes in elevation are shown (are the street elevations given at all?), they cannot be regarded as approved. The building permit only covers what was applied for, plus any possible green entries from the authority.

That’s ridiculous, the excavator drove over it so often, nobody knows anymore what the original level was.

That confirms my suspicion regarding the simple building documents. In NRW you need a site plan with the existing elevations measured before construction activities.
Nevertheless, I see it like you:

However, I assume that the parking space, if it is indeed not exempt from procedures and its construction is not covered by the existing building permit, would still be approvable. That means I might have to obtain the building permit after all.

From your description of the matter, I see no rights of the neighbor violated, so nothing should oppose a possibly required subsequent approval. It just costs triple the fee.