Development Plan - Fences / Retaining Walls Question

"how best to adjust the property (within the permitted limits)"

The question of to what extent the tail should and/or may wag the dog IS answered after all: the reverse is advisable.

Hello,

thank you first for the detailed answers. Quite a lot has already come together and also many things have become clearer :)

Escroda seems to know the development plan very well ;-) The questions concern a plot in the section "WA1a", so the issue with the specified embankments does not apply.

The plots in this section "WA1a" consist of several plots running from east to west, all of which are partially significantly lower on the west side (especially in the rear area) than on the east side. The last plot at the end of the street alone has a height difference of > 5m (!), but it also represents an exception.

We have not yet been able to talk to the neighbor about anything (unfortunately we do not know him personally yet, as the plot was only just sold), only it is the case that he presumably will not embank his plot on the east side (our boundary), since his plot on the west side is about 3m lower than on the east side (why would he then want to raise it higher - I suspect he would rather dig down if he wanted to change something).

We have it similarly (compared to most other plots even relatively weakly expressed). On our property the west side in the rear area is about 2m lower than on the east side in the rear area. On the east side everything should stay as it is, since the next plot adjoins there and the neighbor there also does not want to change anything.

We want to make the garden behind the house as usable as possible, so for example children can play there or a small utility garden can be laid out, therefore at least part behind the house should be reasonably level - or only slightly sloped - and not too steep.

That we cannot achieve a completely flat plot to the boundary like in northern Germany is clear to us ;-) Hence also the questions about the development plan and what is permitted here.

What I have now understood is the following (please correct me if I am wrong):

According to the development plan, we may build a retaining wall at the neighbor’s boundary with a maximum height of 50 cm above the existing terrain, which apparently does not have to be a natural stone wall, since the development plan does not allow more except for ancillary structures (which we do not have on the side).

This means that on the plot itself (a sufficient distance from the boundary), walls may in principle also be >1m (and do not have to be natural stone) as I understand it, provided embankment is done. Correct?

If you want to dig down, the limit is 1m (this does not apply to us, since on the east side towards the neighbor we want to leave the terrain as it is and not dig or support anywhere).

What other options do we have on the west side to make the plot somewhat more level in this area? For example, how are embankments dealt with (which must of course be properly secured and lie on our plot - but also require corresponding space)?

From when is a retaining wall considered as such according to the development plan?

Thank you for your feedback.

Regards

Karl

That means that on the property itself (far enough away from the boundary) walls could in principle also be >1m (and don't have to be made of natural stone) as I understand it, provided that there is embankment. Correct?

I'll put it this way: The wording of the development plan is - as so often - suboptimal. A word-for-word analysis followed by interpretation is difficult. Overall, the very extensive text gives the impression of having been written according to the principle "the more the better." This apparently led to fatigue during the proofreading. What is supposed to be the private area in section 2.2.2, for example, in the sentence "For enclosures above the terrain level of the private area"? I think a "green" before "area" is missing there.
My highlight in 1.3.1: In the deviating construction method, the open construction method ...
However, the planning intention is clearly visible in many points and is appropriately summarized regarding the terrain changes in the justification under 5.1:
Following the principle of careful handling of the protected good 'soil', the development structure is to be oriented to the elevation; the properties should be developed with as little earthmoving as possible.
In addition, there is §10 of the state building code, so I do not see the addition "at the property boundary" in 2.2.2 as a free pass for arbitrary garden design. In the justification under 6.3, the boundary reference is not even mentioned:
So that the terrain and space are not too strongly segmented by retaining walls or enclosures, these are limited on both sides in their height and type to a tolerable level, also in terms of limiting earth excavation. In the interest of an open and green local image, living enclosures and fences made of open structures or closed retaining walls up to 1 m in height are permitted.
I assume that no wall >1m will be approved.

What other options do we have on the west side to somewhat level the property in this area?

Discuss your wishes with your draftsman. He ultimately has to prepare and be responsible for the building submissions and will probably have little desire to receive a rejection notice because of the outdoor facilities. Maybe he can convince you of the advantages of as little earthmoving as possible.

One of the problems in this case might also be that the drafting of such a development plan is outsourced externally and that there is perhaps no one in the municipality with enough professional expertise who has really dealt with the issue or could have dealt with it.

That then results in what you so nicely call "suboptimal" formulations.

We also don't want to build retaining walls and the like at all costs, since that, as you have already pointed out, also swallows unnecessary amounts of money. The property should simply be well usable afterwards. Ultimately, as with many things, it is a compromise.

The restrictions regarding retaining walls made in the development plan do not really seem to fit a building area in which at least 90% of the building plots have height differences >2.5-3m, so I am somewhat surprised how "restrictive" the matters are formulated.

Best regards

Karl