Extension to an existing "multi-family house" - boundary distance?

I fear that the distances to the street on the left have not been maintained

You mean the 10m from the development plan? Do you want it to be taken into account now or not?

What not entirely watertight idea do you have in mind?

§31 Building Code. Actually not applicable, as the designation of the SO is IMHO a basic feature of the planning. This is further emphasized by the higher number of floors there. I took a closer look at the surroundings. The playground is also not where it should be. And the assembly construction company is located in the WA. The complete repeal of the development plan is actually obvious, since urban planning disasters due to §34 Building Code are excluded because of the almost complete development.

Therefore, I would actually like to get in touch with the building authority

If "they" are citizen-friendly, okay. Such a detailed consultation is actually not the task of the authority. Therefore, going to the architect would be more advisable. A developer would close the window in the annex, dismantle the roof terrace, put ETICS 'on it to get a straight line with the main house, straight boundary line, parallel 7.5m another boundary and build two terraced houses. An investor would build multi-family residential buildings with 6 units.

You mean the 10m from the development plan? Do you want it to be considered now or not?

"I make the world the way I like it" or something like that I also find the 10m line there nonsensical, but it is there after all? Which brings us to ....

The complete repeal of the development plan is actually obvious, because due to the almost complete development, urban planning disasters are excluded by §34 of the Building Code.

..come. That would be the task of the (joint) municipality? A playground also exists, just a bit different than once planned. I’ll talk to them about it.

If "they" are citizen-friendly, okay. Such a detailed consultation is actually not the task of the authority. Therefore, going to an architect would be more advisable.

I hope that one could get into conversation among colleagues

A developer would close the window in the extension, dismantle the roof terrace, apply ETICS on it to get a straight line with the main house, make a straight boundary line, place another boundary at 7.5m parallel and build two terraced houses. An investor would build multi-family residential with 6 units.

The mentioned extension with roof terrace is the bakery, which is no longer needed now. In the long term, it should be removed as well, but as long as grandpa is still alive, we don’t want to wipe out “his life’s work.” The store was for selling baked goods, but at 90 he can no longer run the shop. Since the pressure on the real estate market around here is very high (hello VW), selling the property would of course be possible. But we would like to use it ourselves, and since there are no financial pressures, there is no need to get rid of it.

but it is there, after all?

Yes. SO is there as well. According to applicable planning law, your project is not approvable. So I assumed the disregarded nature of the development plan. If you don’t do that, there’s no point in considering anything further without a shop.

That would be the task of the (collective) municipality?

Yes. It is a political decision with greater administrative effort. Nobody does that for a single-family house – but you seem to be "inner circle" after all.

just a little different

Yes. But it does not correspond to the specifications of the development plan. If the plans of those responsible change, the development plan must also be amended. Apparently that's not taken so seriously where you are, hence my suggestion with the unlawful exemption. Why the building boundary, which in my opinion only makes sense in connection with the three-story aspect and the SO, should be a problem is beyond me.

I fear that the distances to the street on the left have not been maintained there,

Professional bashing. What Escroda marks in also fits there.

Specialist slander.

Blasphemous intent was rather suspected by my paranoia-clouded mind in:

"I make the world the way I like it"

But the lack of non-verbal communication channels made me refrain from apocalyptic reactions.

I can already tell, one should be careful with their statements here.
I have now had contact with the municipality; the development plan has at least never been repealed or anything like that, so it still actually has binding effect for the building authority. I have not been able to make contact there yet. It remains exciting. Thanks already to and for the input so far. This will not be my last statement in this thread, and certainly not in this forum.