Current building culture and energy-saving ordinance-compliant new development areas

.... and because of this regulatory frenzy down to the smallest detail, new German housing developments look equally uniform, monotonous, and boring. The architect is reduced to a clerk for building applications.... Creativity and architecture have no place there. A nightmare if you have specific ideas about how your dream house should look.

But then it is exactly that which is built – yes, that does bother me indeed. But we will see if it stays. Probably not, the city council is already extremely pissed off

The fact that the city council is pissed off won’t help him either if the planning approval is based on arbitrariness. He too has to abide by the case law and cannot do whatever he wants.

May I ask WHAT exactly bothers you about it? Is it only that someone else did NOT adhere to (possibly nonsensical) rules, but you did (and would have preferred it otherwise)? Or are there valid reasons like small animals whose paths are blocked by the gabions (which I find terrible) or reduced visibility in the area of exits?

I would be a fool to build there and then have to pay 30,000 as a fine or something like that and set that money aside.

I wouldn’t either, but it is a misconception to assume there are such things as fines. Such things do not exist, they are administrative fees that have to be paid. It may be different in court rulings.
That no dismantling order is issued is often justified with proportionality. Just because of shiny roof coverings, which may not even be really noticeable (hipped roof, low roof pitch, little visibly effective surface), to demand a complete rethink is simply not considered proportionate. I basically see it differently, because often intent is involved, meaning someone knew exactly what they were doing. But intent is very hard to prove, so at worst it is negligence and then the removal order would no longer be proportionate. That also has to be accepted, as well as the respective development plan.

well, I’ve already written it elsewhere, my dream house would only fit on a really large plot anyway. Then the distance to the neighbor would be so great that they wouldn’t mind if I wanted a blue facade with a green roof and yellow windows. I also like variety, within limits. Because it’s like this: how the house looks from the outside is what I see in the garden and when I come home. Once I’m inside, only the neighbors see my building sins, they have to look at them more often than I do.

Addendum because I just saw:

what bothers me is the presumption. As already written: if I don’t like it, I can submit a change request BEFOREHAND – some in the area apparently did that and were then allowed to build their stuff as desired. Others simply didn’t ask and didn’t follow the guidelines.

What specifically bothers me about these fences is that I like green. I find welded wire fences okay per se – but there is this bad habit of threading plastic sheets through them so that no one can see through. And those are usually gray. Then gabions as well, in this case 2m high and 1m wide, one of those things every 2-3 meters – uh, awful. Also, they heat up significantly more in summer than bushes do – that’s not necessary either.

And the roof tiles are on a relatively steep gable roof, meaning they will definitely glare at us at some time of day. I do like them, they suit the particular house – but they only bother the neighbors again, not the selfish builder.

.... and because of this regulatory mania down to the last detail, German new housing developments also look uniformly monotonous and boring. The architect degenerates into a clerk for building applications.... creativity and architecture are out of place here. A nightmare if you have specific ideas about how your dream house should look.

Hmm, we have a lot of variety here, aside from the Viebrockhaus houses. And that’s despite having clear rules, like two-thirds white plaster, single-story, no garden shed, 4-6 RAL colors, etc. Without all these maxims, every house is different [emoji2]

Personally, I always warn against baking your dream house in optical details beforehand. Many fixate on one idea, even though their taste eventually changes and they become happy with a different option. This current fixation on, for example, two-story buildings is partly stubbornness; the positive arguments can be addressed differently. This also applies to other requirements. I can’t imagine that other areas are better off when it comes to the availability of flexible plots or new housing developments: I’d rather take the bird in the hand and bake myself a fresh dream house than wait years to be able to build the now dusty house I once dreamed of years ago.

But I think that’s also the problem: many fixate on a dark or red roof and are never willing to agree with others on a different roof shape and color, even though they will never see their own roof themselves (except on Maps). And suddenly they end up in a building forum complaining about development plans.

I can also remember that some here consider it a no-go to have a shared heating system. I don’t understand that. I gladly take the plot with the great house with this downside rather than having no property at all. Well, everyone is different. But _not_ being willing to compromise very often means having or getting a lot less. For some, this constant negative assessment of details means giving up nice years in their own home.

As already written: if I don’t agree, I can file a change request beforehand – apparently some people in the area did that and were then allowed to build their stuff as they wanted. Others just didn’t ask and didn’t follow the regulations.

A specific case from our building area: The municipality prescribes red roof tiles for shed roofs in the development plan, max pitch 16 degrees. The builder asks the municipality for an exemption from this regulation because he wants to cover a 7-degree shallow roof with anthracite-colored tiles. The municipality says no, reason: we don’t like it, anyone could come and do that. The builder thinks: screw you, I’ll use anthracite tiles. At first, no one notices, until a council member spots it three years later and asks the district office (LRA), as the approving authority, for a removal order. The LRA says they will take a look onsite but already refers to Article 14 of the Basic Law and the lack of planning objectives in the development plan that the red tiles are supposed to serve. The council member argues that the dark tiles would spoil the village character. An on-site inspection shows: 7 degrees pitch, hardly any roof surface visible, so the village character can never be affected. Also, two buildings two streets away with 45 degrees pitch and black tiles have been approved (not part of the development plan). Furthermore, the LRA refers to four court rulings in similar cases, where the municipality sued and lost. The LRA says the legal situation is clear and therefore no removal order will be issued, recommends the municipality tolerate it or grant an isolated exemption. The municipality rejects exemption at the next council meeting, although both the LRA AND the municipal building authority strongly recommend an exemption.
In summary: The builder did exactly what you would expect, namely asking for an exemption early. It was arbitrarily refused, and a legal assessment by the approving authority found no legal basis for this requirement from the LRA’s point of view. How do you think the builder should have acted here?

What bothers me about these fences is specifically that I like green.

I fully agree with you regarding taste, but taste alone is by no means sufficient to restrict a right that others have under the Basic Law. And I actually think it’s right that this should not be possible for reasons of arbitrariness and subjective taste, if you consider what that would mean transferred to other areas.

Regarding the roof tiles: I don’t like the glazed ones at all. But you say that they WILL definitely glare AT YOU SOMETIME. So it hasn’t happened yet and is only a guess?!
Phew, I find it difficult to judge this based on a guess. If it ever DOES glare at you someday, you still have legal recourse. It should be a breeze to win that case if the facts are that clear and intent can be proven [emoji6]

...
What bothers me on the one hand is the intention. As I already wrote: if I don’t like it, I can submit a change request BEFOREHAND....

...
What bothers me specifically about these fences is that I like it green. I find wire mesh fences per se okay - but there is this bad habit of running plastic sheets through them so that no one can look in. And they are mostly gray. Then add gabions, in this case 2m high and 1m wide every 2-3m

I can relate:

I don’t like this plastic either. Not in gray and not in green. Plastic in general not. I would tolerate a sheet at the bottom, for whatever reason.

In our neighborhood, several semi-detached houses have now been occupied, among them by some who already lived in this area. Now there are complaints against a chicken keeper and his rooster: he is too loud and screams too much: well, we live in the countryside – you can please look at the area beforehand and see next to whom you are building.