Development according to §34 - Impact on the house position

If you interpret it differently, please let me know.

Thank you very much for the comments. I find it very interesting. You can see from the judgment of the BVerwG that even the jurists are not in agreement, but also that every detail matters. The cited highest court ruling concerns the erection of an advertising structure outside the buildable area of the property, whose permissibility was affirmed by the lower court. The BVerwG comes to the conclusion that the advertising structure is not permissible, but only because it does not advertise for a company located on the property and therefore constitutes a main installation rather than a subordinate auxiliary installation. However, this does not apply to parking spaces and garages (except in the case of a parking lot or parking garage as an end in itself). Therefore, I consider permissibility within the 7m to be given. §23 Baunutzungsverordnung ... (5) Wenn im Bebauungsplan nichts anderes festgesetzt ist, können auf den nicht überbaubaren Grundstücksflächen Nebenanlagen im Sinne des § 14 zugelassen werden.The same applies to structural installations insofar as they are permissible or can be permitted in the distance areas according to state law. If the original poster has to fight through the courts, he will probably not sleep in the new bedroom until after the shutdown of the last nuclear power plant. But he is already getting used to the 7m.

to ruin the front yard with a roof for the car.

Roof or no roof would be irrelevant, since even an uncovered parking space is a structural installation. Although the convertible with a fabric top would certainly benefit from a roof.

The comment I had read, I can't find it at the moment.

If you come across it again – send it over. I’m not a lawyer but I try to understand that species.

The architect has now drawn our house into the preliminary site plan; is it sensible to mark the parking spaces here this way? Does it mean that once the building permit is approved, you have to build them exactly like this, or is this just for illustration? Actually, as I mentioned in previous posts, I would prefer to have the parking spaces in front of the house. Is this drawing then binding, and should you rather omit the parking spaces for the building application?

Actually, as I already wrote in previous posts, I would prefer to have the parking spaces in front of the house.

Where they are marked, they are fine. Rather welcome you and your visitors with flowers than with cars.

Where they are marked, they are well placed. Greet yourself and your visitors with flowers rather than cars.

Yes, I actually wanted to use the space east of the house for something more useful than cars. You probably spend more time there than in front of the house (and a garden makes more sense, etc.)

Is this drawing then binding

Yes.

should the parking spaces rather be omitted for the building application?

No. Parking spaces are necessary. If they are missing, the building documents are deficient.

No. Parking spaces are necessary. If they are missing, the building plans are defective.

Here in Berlin, no parking spaces are required, unlike perhaps in other federal states. You do not have to provide parking spaces. Therefore, the question is whether those drawn in are really binding. According to the building regulations, I would not have to build them. But my concern is, if I do build some, whether I then have to build them there. Since a carport here is also exempt from approval, who cares where it stands, as long as one adheres to the maximum boundary development, height, etc.?