Higher visual privacy behind a regulation-compliant enclosure?

Are visibility triangles not usually drawn in the land-use plan approvals to mark and protect such spots (junctions for traffic)? @TE do you have such visibility triangles on your property in the land-use plan that must be kept clear? If not, I would do as suggested: let it grow and react if someone complains or seek advice/inspiration from a landscape gardener when the time comes. The unfounded (!) regulatory mania of some municipalities bugs me anyway, such as the plant catalog from which one must choose here ... [emoji849]

I have attached a screenshot of the mentioned property. Visibility triangles are also marked there, and I find them reasonable. After all, I will be using the street and do not want to expose myself to any danger when crossing. The blue line symbolizes the construction area (4m from the boundary).

My idea is to make the enclosure 0.80 m high according to the development plan and to plant a hedge as a privacy screen 3 m behind it at the spots where we want it. This way, the visibility triangle is preserved and does not endanger anyone, but we also have the desired privacy.

My only concern is whether this complies with regulations and that we are not doing anything wrong. We will lose a few square meters of real space, but privacy is more important to us.

PS: The pre-marked houses and garages are just placed there. We would build the house and garage as far “up” as possible so that the garden is as large as possible.

Of course, I will contact the city again and inquire at the source. But that is unfortunately a bit difficult on a Saturday.

This is not a heavily trafficked road; furthermore, it is a new development area. However, it is possible that additional plots will be developed to the north later on, resulting in higher through traffic.

The visibility triangle is shown in the screenshot. Within the visibility triangle, we are only allowed to build up to 0.80 m, and at the boundaries adjacent to streets up to 1 m high.



Regards

The building boundaries are adapted to the sight triangles, so I see little problem there as long as they are kept clear. Keep in mind, you could theoretically place your building exactly at that spot, which, at a 4m distance from the property boundary, could be up to 8m high (0.5h rule applied for the building part). The 2m won’t be an issue.

But feel free to check with the city again, possibly even include the planting in the submission plan; it doesn’t hurt, and then you’ll have certainty and can sleep more peacefully [emoji4]

I hadn’t looked at it that way at all. But you are absolutely right, I could also build the house right on the border and that would be much bigger than the 2 meters. I’ll call on Monday right away but now I have a much better feeling. Thanks to you and also to everyone else who has discussed this with me. Best regards

The question we face is whether we should set up the regulation-compliant 0.80 m high enclosure around the property and plant a hedge behind it at a certain distance (e.g. 1.5 m) that functions as a privacy screen (say 1.70 m high, for example).

The enclosure is only regulation-compliant as long as you do not place a non-compliant enclosure behind it.

If it is allowed: Where can I find out how high the hedge is allowed to be and at what distance from the enclosure it must/may stand?

At the distance at which the building would also be allowed to follow – in other words, within the building area – this should be "at the latest" possible. Also, recessing the height from the boundary I would consider permitted or at least approvable.

I unfortunately suspect a real reason for the 0.8 m limit here. Road traffic. Otherwise, you cannot see whether someone is coming from the right. They are intersecting roads, you say.

This is specifically an additional reason here against an exception directly at or near the boundary. In this respect, I do not see the exercise

(0.5h rule applied for the building part)

as applicable here. I suspect the official information will be: "not allowed at all within the triangle," and behind that the simple height as distance will be considered appropriate.

Unjustified (!) regulatory mania by some municipalities annoys me anyway, such as the plant catalog from which one must choose in our area...

In the case of unfounded regulations I see it the same way – however, "also with a laughing eye": in this sense, any excessive regulation can also be a welcome occasion to take a development plan to court.

The enclosure is only compliant as long as there is no non-compliant enclosure placed behind it.

In this respect, I do not see the exercise ... as applicable here. I suspect that the official information will indicate: "not at all in the triangle," and the simple height as the distance behind it would then be considered appropriate.

Why should that be the case? I am not aware of any regulation stating that no clearance areas are allowed in visibility triangles.

In my opinion, that also makes little sense if you look at the purpose of visibility triangles. Either they are sufficient, then there is no reason to impose further restrictions outside of them, or they are not sufficient, in which case they would need to be enlarged. But as already said, just ask the authority and that's that. Then you have certainty.

For unjustified regulations, I saw and still see it the same way – but "also with a smiling eye": in this sense, any excessive regulation can also be a welcome occasion to drag a development plan before the judge.

If you want to waste your time with court proceedings with uncertain outcomes, you can do that. For me, that's simply too stupid... and being right and winning a case are two different things – even in German courts.

As an example: Requirement in the development plan for shed roofs with a max. of 16 degrees AND roofing with tiles/slates in red to reddish-brown colors.

1. Standard roof pitch for tile roofing is at least 20 degrees

2. A builder didn't care about that, made a 7-degree roof pitch with anthracite-colored roof tiles. The municipality asks him to reconsider. He: no! Subsequently, the municipality requests the district office for an order to remove it. The district office conducts an on-site inspection, concludes that this is not appropriate *) and recommends the municipality to tolerate this deviation because they would probably lose in court. The head of the building authority passes the recommendation on to the municipal council and also supports it. The municipal council says no and continues to annoy its citizen... and now?

*) Reason: The municipality believes the village character would be affected by different roof colors. The problem is that with a 7-degree roof pitch hardly any of the roof area is visible, and two streets away (different development plan) black roof tiles can be found on a 50-degree gable roof. This is also the district office's argument.

Sorry, this is off-topic.