Deviation from the development plan in the new construction area is possible

Stay grounded. He advised against it in a factual, well-reasoned way, which is totally okay. Banning him from expressing his opinion ("silence forever") is significantly more presumptuous, dear ypg.

Nevertheless, an alternative offer would have been constructive in order to make the criticism constructive.

The shape of the plot, the orientation of the slope, and the development plan mean that compromises have to be made in every possible arrangement.

Which ones are acceptable and which are not could emerge in the course of this thread.

Measured against the above-mentioned points of criticism, the "old" plan of the OP would be better - but this, in turn, has other serious weaknesses (especially: not approvable).

How to deal with wastewater if the house is to be built downhill to the north is also still unclear?

-----

In the end, the question remains on the plot whether the house should be at the front or the back, whether across or lengthwise to the axis of the plot.

Once these two fundamental questions are clarified, one can proceed.

I and others have advocated for front + lengthwise. Is there even an approvable design for back + lengthwise/across?

He stated objectively, with reasons

Well, I can't really see any objective reasons there.

- Risk neighbor in the west builds garage directly in front of the terrace.

That is even very likely. But I find it somewhat bold to say "directly in front of the terrace." The house has a boundary distance of over 6m and a garage may only be 3m high.

there will probably be a retaining wall

... which according to the development plan may not be higher than one meter. Drawing a picture of New York street canyons here is probably a bit exaggerated.

- Garage driveway 5.0m too short, garage with 6m is far too narrow

... those are completely usual dimensions. Anyone who needs more space must buy more space.

- Floor plan difficult to implement with this design

also here: no justification given. The floor plan has already been realized.

- The north surface lies lower than the street according to the OP and is thus not well usable.

Here there is a slight to moderate slope. The maximum height difference along the property diagonal is 2.03m.

Everything has to be "carried downward."

Sorry, that's ridiculous.

- Option of a swimming pool in the south then shifts to the north. Can be done...

The plot is over 700m² large. As if it mattered whether a freestanding pool would be located in the north or south. I believe you only skimmed the thread, so you are missing some facts. In this respect, I can only agree with Yvonne:

I find that cheeky and thoughtless.

But I would never build like that

Then you wouldn't have bought this plot either. Surely the plot would better suit the OP's wishes if it were in South Africa or at least on the other side of the street. But now she has bought it anyway. So how could a solution look like?

Before writing something like this, one should consider an alternative proposal or remain silent forever. You can also give the OP the tip to fold the plot twice and put it in the round filing. I find that cheeky and thoughtless.

Bad sleep? I really hope that this is not the usual tone in this forum. That's all I’ll say about it.

I mainly registered here now because I have been a lurker in many posts so far and find this topic exciting, since I myself built on a hillside plot some time ago and can well understand the problems.

It annoys me a bit how almost unanimously people argue against the OP that she planned incorrectly. If anything, her architect planned incorrectly, and even that is not certain, since not all information was disclosed here.

However, it could be clearly read that our authorities and officials – of whom I think very little, since mostly fools work there, officials after all – once again have shone with incompetence and inability. In this case, the builders will probably have to pay the price.

I have politely and factually assessed Escroda’s design and uncovered some serious weaknesses. There are more, for example, one closes off all options for a carport. I believe the OP is building in the countryside, where people also like to have 4+ cars.

But now to make a constructive proposal, I could imagine shifting Escroda’s design as far north as possible in order to have a nice terrace to the south and make the area usable again from the street. Because as it is drawn, in my eyes it is simply nonsense and I hope the OP does not let herself be unsettled by this.

Alternatively, I would change the building structure and build something rectangular; then the problem with setback areas is solved. I don’t know now if there is still time for that.

Best regards

One could very well read that our authorities and officials - of whom I think nothing at all, since mostly only idiots work there, officials after all - once again have shone with incompetence and inability.

Uh... no! In this case, something was simply planned that was not allowed from the start. Whoever plays with the risk can also lose.

But to make a constructive suggestion now, I could imagine pushing the Escroda draft as far north as possible to get a nice terrace in the south and make the area usable again from the street.

And exactly which disadvantages are avoided and which advantages are created by this?

So, I first need to think about Escroda’s proposal....Thanks in any case for that! According to the development plan, the west terrace is not allowed because we are only allowed to fill between the buildings and the street....so not on the sides....a balcony would be possible...do I understand correctly that I would then have an entrance from the garage and one in the south for the guests? As Alex 85 says, unfortunately the neighbor to the west could put his 3 m high garage right in front of us and also a retaining wall of 2 m (you are allowed to fill toward the street, so the garage would not just be 3 m high but if I look to the west it is 3 m plus filling of 1.5 m or however much, according to BayBo even 2 m are allowed!)) My house is currently planned so that everything basically takes place on the ground floor; with the new proposal life would take place on 2 levels, I have to think about whether I like that. I am also still thinking about where to put the 3 garbage bins... And I still can’t quite imagine the floor plan with the proposal either, where would you put the living room? Which room would be in front of the basement terrace?

First of all, thanks for the ideas and opinions, I think everyone here is allowed to say why they don’t like which design, I can then draw my own conclusions and change something or leave it as is.

In general, I have a certain opinion regarding the development plan. I see it rather as the municipality or whoever should create a reasonable regulation and not that I plan a design that fits the development plan and then don’t like it at all. The whole project is way too expensive for that and the development plan is too new and only negatively regulated for one street side.

And in my case the municipality wanted to regulate it differently, but unfortunately formulated it in such a way in the development plan that now nothing decent can come of it.

chand1986: what advantages does Escroda’s proposal have? And it was not simply planned against the development plan, I tried to explain that. I was at the municipality in December and asked how certain texts were to be understood and whether my plan corresponded to the development plan and the answer was yes. But the plan was rejected by the LRA (not the municipality).

Meanwhile, as requested, attached are the neighbor’s building plan, the plot and our current plan as 3D.....

(What am I doing wrong when uploading files that they always have to be translated again?)

Best regards