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

You mean the white triangle to the left of the basement? I think it’s due to the "section," making it look as if it’s open. In the specific "views," it is normally filled in and was planned from the beginning to be filled in. (I’ve only posted the section here because the views didn’t have any elevation data of the property.) (I found the views in an old thread of mine. They’re not completely up to date, but neither the location/distance nor the house size has changed. The staking out was done so that the ground slab was measured from the street level (5.36 m + 0.25). The top edge of the finished floor actually changed by 25 cm because we made the basement floor lower than according to the architect’s plan. However, we raised the ground slab by this difference. Otherwise, the whole house has stayed the same and the location is also the same as specified by the architect. We know this exactly because we needed a transfer of setback area from the neighbor at one boundary, and clear measurements to the boundary were given there.

There are no height indications in the views, however, based on the drawings I would also assume that you can go approximately at ground level from the ground floor into the garden. If the actual terrain profile differs from what you have shown, then there must be discrepancies between the building permit application and the actual terrain. And then it looks like a planning error again...

It gets amusing if correct height indications were made in the site plan for the building permit and their graphical implementation on the sections was not done correctly.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

If it is now as you have depicted, then that is crap... You are constantly looking at a wall... And your architect really has a problem then..

Hello, may I ask how the matter was resolved?

We currently have the same problem. We now have the [EG] on it and have to excavate 1.50 meters of soil just to be able to step out of the terrace door. The architect did point out that it wouldn't be "completely straight," but he did not mention these massive circumstances. We are really desperate.

Yes, that is really quite sh...e, of course. It was similar for us with the "it's not quite straight..."

We have left it as it is now. As you can see in my profile picture, you can see the house and the gabions in front of it. We turned and twisted everything, but everything else would have been too many compromises. We also weren't sure if the builder would have charged us a compensation for the effort since we were just before the start of construction. We would have needed a new submission plan and a new building permit to build our house higher....

We now have a 3 - 7 m wide distance around the house to the next "slope level," meaning we can already go out from the terrace and also once around the back past the gabions. In the meantime, I don't find it so bad anymore; we got used to it quite quickly. It's just a bit of a pity that compared to the neighboring houses, we now lie so "low."

Yes, it is similar for us. We actually should have intervened when we saw the extremely deep excavation pit. But according to the architect, everything was correct. We are building with a staggered shed roof and therefore have a very high roof, so that we reach the maximum allowed ridge height of 12 meters. A house with a lower roof (e.g., gable roof) would have been more sensible, then we could have been higher and could have gone straight into the garden on the ground floor. In my opinion, there is a gross planning error by the architect here. The house does not fit the plot. He should have pointed this out to us??? "Unfortunately," all the plans, building application, etc. are correct and the numbers and lines (existing height) are drawn in. But I wonder whether you have to recognize as a layperson that this was a planning error and how much reality differs from the plans.
I would prefer to have it legally reviewed. The question is only how promising that would be.
Have you taken any steps in that direction? Or anyone else here in the forum???
I find your solution good though. That’s how we will approach it in the worst case...