Development according to §34 - Impact on the house position

Planning against the opinion of the approval authority is a long way. If your architect does not succeed with his arguments, you can of course still submit a building application according to your wishes. It would then be rejected, and you can then file a lawsuit against it. The prospects of success are hardly assessable in a forum, especially with the small plan excerpt.

I always wonder how the authority comes to its opinion. Does the officer then look at the cadastral plan or go on site and then decide objectively? In my opinion, such a thing should be decided by a large committee.
I have attached a larger plan excerpt.

Yes. There is the term "de facto building boundary." When the fronts of the neighboring buildings are linked over a wide area and a more or less uniform line becomes visible, then you must not exceed this building boundary. One can discuss subordinate building parts, but that is not desired in your case.

I am always amazed that especially in new development areas there is rampant growth and the houses often do not stand in a line. Why is such attention paid to old buildings, but often not at all to new ones?

My assessment based on the few pieces of information: It does not constitute an unreasonable hardship to build the house with a 7m distance from the street, so that a court proceeding is not an option. I would go to the building authority again with the architect and negotiate every decimeter. I would then have the result of the negotiation decided by a planning law preliminary construction inquiry and then submit the building application.

It is certainly not an unreasonable hardship, but nevertheless the house builder is deprived of the possibility to position the house according to his personal preference, which is an interference with his freedom and also has later consequences through shading, sitting in the dark, less "sun garden," etc. Why is a uniform line more important than personal living comfort?

The basic idea of §34 is the insertion requirement. From this perspective, it is obvious that the building supervisory authority, among other things, also demands a certain adherence to the building line. Such things are more the norm than the exception and should already be sufficiently considered when choosing the property. Of course, every rule also creates an exception, but you will have to (expensively) fight for that. Outliers are generally not welcome, as they sustainably change the structure of the area. How is it opposite? Also 7 meters to the street? No. 4 seems to me to be closer to the street at the corner as well?

I can also understand all of that, but sometimes I wish for a bit more sensitivity with the restrictions. It’s quite different if you have to keep 7 meters free to the north on a property with a 15m street frontage, or on a property with 25m street frontage, where you immediately have 70 m² more unusable space to the north.

According to the building authority, the opposite side is not considered; only numbers 6 and 7 are relevant. No. 4 is about 5m from the street, but the processor was also surprised why it was approved that way (probably ages ago). Actually, No. 4 should also be about 7m from the street, but the property is also oddly skewed, so it might not even be possible.

And it looks like your building limit is derived from an imaginary cord around the corners of the existing buildings.

According to the processor, only No. 6 and 7 are relevant, No. 4 plays no role in the determination of the building setback line. Of course, one could see it that way. The best solution would naturally be something in between No. 6 and No. 4, about 6m away from the street, but all the other houses (7, 8, 9) are at least 7m away from the street. Attached again is the cadastral plan.

It's perfectly ideal what is expected from you: there is enough space in the north to create a Sundowner second terrace there. Don't underestimate the possibility!

A terrace in the north, does that make sense? Some houses have only 3m-5m distance to the street, so you can of course do very little with that. Maybe the 7m really aren't so bad, because at least you have a larger area where you can do quite a bit with...

yeah, that went wrong, should have been clarified before the purchase. §34 is probably often mistaken for a "free pass".

I don't want a free pass, just a decision made with common sense and not that the regulations are enforced at all costs. One has to take the conditions of the property into account.

A terrace in the north gets west sun in the evening. Your options to sit in the sun are not restricted by the seven-meter regulation. The southwest side also offers plenty of space, only in the southeast does it get tight, but not too tight. A complaint for an exception will hardly succeed here. How do you want to justify that convincingly? I prefer a building closer to the street; it just can't be otherwise. Construction according to §34 must be approved just as restrictively, imagine the neighbor to your west demolishes and rebuilds and now comes up to 4 m from the street, you would be furious, your evening sun would be gone. Therefore, no risk, the caseworker is only maintaining peace in the street. Karsten