Hang securing > overcoming 1.30 m / house in a "ditch"

Thank you very much for the great drawing and the detailed explanation! It really looks nice, but the work does sound a bit daunting. (Da wir im restlichen Haus auch viel selbst machen wollen)

Hello everyone,

after our house has now been staked out and a "string scaffold" has been set up, we noticed that our beautiful architect's drawing unfortunately doesn't really fit and that at the back with the ground floor we are about 1.30 m lower than our terrain level of the slope.

So we need a "trench" behind the house and then a retaining wall/parapet so that we have a straight garden at the top as much as possible.
Our shell builder suggested L-shaped stones or gabions and a drainage system underneath. Currently, we tend to go for gabions; they simply look a bit nicer than the concrete L-shaped stones.
I quickly drew it. Green is the house wall, brown the trench, retaining wall and the terrain.


What other solutions are there that are not extremely expensive?

And can there be other problems with this "trench constellation"? Moisture, hillside water etc?

Best regards

Hello WildThing,

I think you haven’t recognized the crucial point yet – if the architect indicated the terrain in the building application as even or clearly less steep or clearly lower, this is a clear planning fault by the architect, which either has to be corrected by the architect himself or covered by his liability insurance. After all, heights for the entire plot (!) were given in the building application (!), and usually the architect signed off that these were accurately recorded or they were provided by a surveyor. But the surveyor is insured as well.

In fact, the section through the terrain and presumably at least 3 views of the building and thus their setback area calculation are significantly wrong, which should have also been noticed during the building permit process, unless it was done in an exemption procedure. The increased costs of garden design are consequential damages of the faulty planning of the house or the architect should have pointed out that on the respective side of the house there would be a significant height difference to the actual terrain when the building volume with the corresponding target height for the ground floor is transferred onto the terrain.

Bauexperte put it nicely, but the architect is not only a proper fool here but also liable for damages. If, for a sloped plot, he saves the few euros for correct planning data from a surveyor, then that is his risk and eventually his damage.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

Hello Dirk, thank you for your honest opinion and your information regarding liability and compensation obligations. I am not sure whether we simply "misread" the plan or whether it is actually incorrect. The property boundary at the back is also not parallel to the house, but skewed. The setback areas could be incorrect, but it does not matter on three sides because all three affected setback areas lie with a buffer on our property.

I have attached a picture showing how it was drawn on the plan. After we now placed the ruler on our ground floor, the 1.40 m at the back clearly stands out. For us, it still looked relatively "even."

Hmm ... there is a massive 60° slope drawn in, which extends over the entire height of the basement floor!? The existing ground level is also shown ... if you install windows in the rear basement with this construction method, you have to be aware that you either need massive light wells or the slope shown!?

If I read this correctly, there is almost a 7m (!) height difference across the entire property between both boundaries!? And now you seriously assumed a level garden plot!? Unbelievable ...

As the pragmatist I am, I would simply plant the slope and build a bridge from the ground floor into the garden if the slope occupies the entire width of the house. Or remove the basement windows and fill it up completely.

Regarding the AR, I take everything back and claim the opposite.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

We were already aware that we have an extreme slope and overall not a flat plot, but it was specifically only about the rear area. (In the picture on the left)
Based on the views, it was not clear to us that it is so steep at the back, we thought it would remain as it has been in terms of incline. (Currently maybe about 10° for the upper 5 meters and then of course it gets steeper) That means we thought that, as drawn, at the back on the ground floor we would be at ground level with the top edge of the floor.

But you are talking about the basement. The problem is not the basement but the problem is that we are so deep in with the ground floor! That means our ground floor floor level is about 1.30 m deep into the ground at the back if we leave the terrain as it is now.

From my point of view, the architect should have said that we either have massive earthworks or a trench if we build it as he has drawn.

Actually, "in reality" the terrain slope is like this:
And it is about the "green" hatched area that we now have to "dig out" and secure...

If it actually looks like this, then the +1.45m at the end of the property do not fit at all and the terrain profile is massively misrepresented.

What I do find strange, however ... what happened to the slope at the basement? Is it supposed to be filled in now?

And at what level was the staking done, i.e., where is the batter board set up – at basement level or ground floor level? Is there a staking sketch with NN heights? Has the finished floor level changed during the planning process? Has the house been pushed further into the slope than originally planned?

Best regards
Dirk Grafe