Covering the terrace vs exceeding the floor area ratio

Hello everyone,

we would like to roof our terrace. According to the development plan, the floor area ratio for us is 0.3.

According to the area calculation (house purchased used 10 years ago), the house has a floor area ratio of 0.23 (floor area ratio I?), with carport and access path 0.29 (floor area ratio II?). However, I can only partially understand the calculation for the carport. In addition to the carport, the driveway is also completely paved (does that matter?).

With the additional terrace roof and a garden shed (already present at purchase, but not included in the floor area ratio above), we approach the 0.4...0.45 floor area ratio II, the floor area ratio I rises to 0.28 with 24m2 terrace roof.

Now my questions would be:

[*]Is it correct that only the built-over, but not the paved area, is included in floor area ratio II?
[*]Do I need a building permit from the floor area ratio perspective if the numbers above are correct?

If anyone can help me here – possibly also for a fee – I would appreciate support!

Thank you very much!

where no plaintiff.......
just do it

However, I can only partially understand the calculation for the carport.

Unfortunately, I cannot understand the calculation at all. This requires information about which version of the Land Use Ordinance forms the basis for the development plan, whether the development plan contains provisions deviating from the Land Use Ordinance, the site plan for the building permit application, the calculation at that time, the indication whether the actual condition corresponds to the approved plans, and if not, a current aerial photograph or site plan showing the deviations.
Now my assumptions:
The development plan is not older than 30 years. The Land Use Ordinance 1990 applies.
The development plan contains no special regulations regarding the floor area ratio / plot ratio.
The building application includes no terrace, therefore not in the calculation of floor area ratio / plot ratio.
The terrace roof is within the buildable area.
The terrace roof complies with the necessary setback distances.

Is it correct that only the built-upon area, but not the paved area, is included in floor area ratio II?

No.

Do I need - if the figures above are correct - a building permit from the perspective of floor area ratio?

No.

where there is no plaintiff....

just do it

Great tip! In view of recent incidents in NRW and RP, the risk of plaintiffs is increasing if the figures or my assumptions are incorrect.

And you don’t even need a plaintiff - an anonymous tipster is enough to prompt the responsible authorities to initiate an investigation.

Good morning everyone!

First of all, thank you very much for your answers! I will try to answer the questions as best as I can, although it gets difficult for a layperson right away.

Unfortunately, I cannot follow the calculation at all. This requires indicating which version of the Baunutzungsverordnung (Federal Land Utilization Ordinance) underlies the development plan, whether the development plan contains provisions deviating from the Baunutzungsverordnung, the site plan submitted with the building application, the calculation made at the time, information on whether the current state corresponds to the approved plans, and if not, a current aerial photograph or site plan showing where deviations exist.

The house is from '99, the currently valid development plan from 2006. Textual provisions 1-3,5,7:



The floor area ratio is 0.3

Now my assumptions:
The development plan is not older than 30 years. The Baunutzungsverordnung 1990 applies.
The development plan contains no special regulations concerning the floor area ratio/site coverage ratio.
No terrace is included in the building application, so it is also not included in the floor area ratio/site coverage ratio calculation.

Correct. Furthermore:
- the built carport is larger than the one in the building application (but it was subsequently measured – is that okay?)
- the access path from the building application does not exist; instead, the entire driveway is paved (do paved areas count towards floor area ratio II?)

The terrace roof is within the buildable area.
The terrace roof complies with the required boundary distances.

And this is where it gets difficult right away. The distances fit, but—as I now must realize—there is a problem with the buildable area:



Due to the slanting development boundary line, the terrace (west of the house) would protrude with one side diagonally into the building boundary. Absolute no-go or can this be remedied by building permission?

Great tip! In view of the recent incidents in NRW and RP, the risk is increasing that there will be plaintiffs if the figures or my assumptions are incorrect.

Given the investment in the terrace roof (or the conservatory if we close the front as well), I really want to play it safe. Although we have large trees around, there is also public traffic in front of the fence. On the exact day our terrace was newly paved, the building authority and surveyor for the shed + carport showed up. A suspicious fellow might think badly...

I would like to understand:

[*]do paved areas count towards floor area ratio II?
[*]do I have a problem if these are not included in the former building application or if the carport turned out larger and a shed exists (both measured, both already purchased as-is)?
[*]is a slight violation of the building boundary fundamentally eligible for approval if the authority allows it?
[*]does it make a difference whether it is a terrace roof (=carport, house wall, glass sliding elements closed on 3 sides) or a conservatory (=also glass sliding elements closed at the front)?

Looking forward to your answers – thanks!

Best regards

The best view with dimensions I found in the drainage application - unfortunately, there are no better documents available: