Apart from the roof pitch, the development plan also specifies the ridge direction. I would be surprised if there were no further stipulations in the text section regarding neighborhood adaptation, such as a common eaves height (at least towards the street) or a knee wall prohibition (at least restriction). If not, you can do it.
Looks like you're lucky. The framework specified by the development plan doesn't offer many options (small building window, only semi-detached houses, fixed roof pitch and ridge direction, mandatory two-story construction) and Art.8 BayBO still helps against overly imaginative planners: ... 2 Structural installations must not disfigure the street, town, and landscape appearance. ...I could build a different knee wall than the neighbor. That would be my luck...
It looks like you're lucky. The framework set by the development plan doesn't offer many possibilities (small building envelope, only semi-detached houses, fixed roof pitch and ridge direction, mandatory two-storey construction) and against overly ambitious planners, Art.8 BayBO still helps:
... 2 Structural installations must not disfigure the street, town, and landscape image. ...
It was not meant that way. I apologize if it came across like that. In #6, I was only assuming further stipulations such as eave and/or ridge heights, or clauses for neighborhood adjustment. However, since the excerpts in #8 refer to the Federal Building Code, it must be a development plan more than 30 years old. Back then, such stipulations were not as common as they are today. With my enumeration, I only wanted to make clear that further stipulations for urban planning reasons are also not really necessary here, as the existing ones should be sufficient to prevent an optical disaster.That sounds ironic.