From illegal construction to approved construction or new construction!

  • Erstellt am 2017-01-02 20:23:28

Hebras75

2017-01-02 20:23:28
  • #1
Hello,

I bought a house which is half an illegal construction. I was at the office today and have the possibility to have the not yet approved part retroactively approved.

Currently, I am fighting to be able to keep the house as it is and to start the renovation I had planned.

For that, plans need to be created and then a building permit must be applied for!

I talked to an architect and overall it would cost me around €5,000 (initial rough estimate) = for the plans, structural engineer, surveyor, and building permit. That is still attractive for me.

Now comes the part where I don’t yet see a solution that is economically viable: the part to be retroactively approved will be considered a new building. So the Energy Saving Ordinance applies here, which is difficult for a building from 1959. How am I supposed to achieve an economically feasible U-value of 0.28? The only hope I see is paragraph §25, the exemption. Meaning that the specified U-value is not economically achievable, but that is without including the old building in the economic calculation, as it theoretically does not exist!

The house is completely built with double walls using half bricks with a 5 cm air gap. I would want to do core insulation. The whole house is on one level and has a size of 95 square meters.

I would be very interested in ideas and suggestions or simply thoughts that come to someone. So an open brainstorming :-)
 

nightdancer

2017-01-02 21:52:13
  • #2
Who claims that according to the [Energieeinsparverordnung] an illegal building is treated as a new building?!

Aside from that, your house can contain asbestos and be contaminated with [pak], that should also be clear.
 

Hebras75

2017-01-03 13:54:39
  • #3
According to the Energy Saving Ordinance, it is not the illegal construction that is treated as a new building but: If someone wants to have a building approved retroactively, the illegal construction is regarded as if it were a new building. And since it is considered a new building by the authority, the Energy Saving Ordinance applies. Somewhat moderated in my case because it is an extension, but it applies.
 

nightdancer

2017-01-03 17:07:48
  • #4
Again: Who said that the [Neubau-Energieeinsparverordnung] values have to be complied with?!
 

Hebras75

2017-01-03 18:13:14
  • #5
I!
 

Similar topics
29.04.2010Energy Saving Ordinance 2009 even without solar?16
06.02.2017Insulate new construction 36.5 aerated concrete?60
05.08.2014New single-family house (KFW70)/aerated concrete vs. sand-lime brick/what to use?71
07.04.2014Is new construction possible without solar and without a heat pump?20
19.06.2015Build according to KFW 70 or the Energy Saving Ordinance 201442
15.12.2019Aerated concrete exterior wall vs. Energy Saving Ordinance13
12.08.2015Is insulation worth it beyond the new construction standard?34
10.01.2017Energy Saving Ordinance 2016 / KFW55 / Gas + Solar in 201628
24.12.2015Single-family house, Energy Saving Ordinance 2016, developer recommends additional insulation - is it sensible?39
09.05.2016Compliance with the 2016 Energy Saving Ordinance with the following heating14
03.07.2016U-value of windows - differences15
25.06.2016How important is the U-value of interior walls?12
13.10.2016Which heating concept for new construction without ventilation system?21
13.04.2017U-value of windows: 1.3 - is an upgrade worth it?16
10.11.2017New construction, wood-burning stove, nominal heat output, how now?38
07.05.2020U-value outer wall 0.26 - is that okay?13
06.11.2018Ytong Energy Saving Regulation 25cm stone thickness allowed - Who has experience?17
29.01.2021Is the 2014 Energy Saving Ordinance a KfW standard?24
03.03.2021Purchase single-family house new build energy saving regulation standard prospectively sufficient?24
15.12.2022Planning guest WC in new construction - How big should it be? (DIN?)107

Oben