Floor plans for single-family house, approx. 140 m², without basement

Regarding the development plan: I asked the municipality several times. The statement was that they don’t even look at the application because, firstly, they don’t care how we build, we should build however we like. And secondly, because they see the responsibility for compliance as lying with the architect. [...] I have always understood the position of the house and carport on the DP as a suggestion. [...] That’s why I asked the building authority twice, each time a different employee. One said it should rather be understood as a recommendation than an obligation. Written quote from the other: "The driveway can also be placed elsewhere, but not in the curve area. The intersection area of the two streets must in any case be kept clear. If there are no other deviations from the development plan, in our opinion, the construction project can be carried out under the permit exemption procedure. Ultimately, it is up to your planner to decide whether to apply for a permit or not. After all, he bears sole responsibility for this."

Wishy-washy information is an indication of a lack of competence. The authoritative opinion of the authority is ultimately expressed by the head of the office, and he does not care whether his subordinates hold different beliefs on a factual matter.

Development plans are firstly not suggestions but legally binding documents; and secondly, they do not necessarily consist only of the graphical part. If symbols for houses and outbuildings/garages are drawn in with concrete specifications (here clearly: pitched roofs, regarding the main buildings also clearly with the required ridge direction), then I would never consider that decoration. Rather, it is an indication that such details are contained in a so-called "textual provision" of the development plan.

Prescribing the side for the driveway would be unusual in a residential area with equally ranked residential streets. Where one street is a residential street and the other a through road, this might occasionally be the case. Excluding the driveway from being placed in the intersection area is also unusual but can certainly be practiced by the municipality as part of "hazard prevention" — after all, it would require the attention of traffic participants from three directions at once there. In the specific case, however, it seems to me that the authoritative decision on this results from the indicated location of the garage.

Regulations differ by federal state as to when a building permit is required and when a building notification suffices. In the latter case, the builder or his architect may still submit an application, which then must be processed — by approval, rejection, or also by the exemption notice. The sarcastic concluding remark means in English: even a building requiring only notification must be torn down if it does not comply with the regulations. And precisely for this reason, in optional cases a formal building permit application is sometimes gladly submitted anyway: if the permit is granted, then it is also valid. Then the authority will stand behind the error of a caseworker if need be, who thought the house symbol was just for fun on the plan and that the citizen had all the freedom of taste in the world.

Hm, thanks for your interesting objections. You are misinterpreting the pictorial version; the textual one says more about roof shape (everything allowed) and ridge direction. The written wishy-washy statement comes from the department head. There is only one other employee in the office since it is a small community. I also believe them that they don’t answer so offhandedly because they don’t care if we eventually have to tear down. Rather, because they are actually glad about anyone who builds, and indeed the way they want to, as long as they comply with the basic regulations. If someone is bothered by a "better" positioned access road, I would be surprised. Otherwise, you are of course right, nothing is binding and a residual risk remains.

I can only repeat myself: I find the initial situation catastrophic. I would not welcome it. The location of the carport may be good, but not the entrance behind it. The entrance from the front suggests itself and then possibly turning the stairs.

Regards

Otherwise, you are of course right, it is nothing binding and a residual risk remains.

It could be eliminated by means of an approval application.

P.S.: Are you identical with the OP - then there would probably also be the forgot password function instead of creating a new account (?)

I can only repeat myself: I find the entrance situation catastrophic. I would not feel welcome. The location of the carport may be good, but not the entrance behind it. Approaching from the front of the enclosure suggests itself and then possibly turning the stairs.

One should not have to squeeze past the cars, i.e. the entrance should be conveniently accessible not only when only one car is there. But basically, I find the "personal union" of carport and front door canopy acceptable. However, this can require generous widths if it is to be well compatible with children (along with their vehicles).

Oops, sorry, I didn't forget my password, but obviously without realizing it I have two accounts.

Regarding the entrance, I can only repeat: in my opinion, there is no other way. Alternatively, we can only return the property and after another 5 years of searching buy one at four times the price, where everything fits side by side so that it looks good.
I think it’s nice that you share your opinion, that’s what the thread is for. But calling it catastrophic is not very tactful and makes me seriously question our plan. We would find two parking spaces in a row much more catastrophic. The entrance on the south side definitely looks more inviting, but it requires a significantly larger size for the house. At least in all the variants I’ve tried out. An entrance in the north was still an option, but that only works with parking spaces in a row and terrain difficulties. Nevertheless, I will reconsider the various options if the current plan is not found to be good.

The distance between the two parked cars is by the way 1.65m. We used to keep our bikes in the garage and as kids we rode them between the cars. Distance = handlebar width + about 5 cm. The cars were not damaged in the process. Of course, the situation in the garage is completely different from the house entrance where, for example, neighbors' kids sometimes rush in who are less aware of the problem.