Knee wall height / Proposal from the building authority

Look at the recent pencil drawings of the OP, then you will see that the eaves height has not changed in either example; only the roof is steeper (obviously, at the pitch angle, a range is possible).

In my opinion, the roof is not steeper. The house is now 12m wide instead of 10m because of the supports, and thus the roof comes higher.

I know Wikipedia is not necessarily a suitable medium for detailed questions, but at least it says

The lean-to roof has the elevation (cross-section) of a shed roof, whose ridge adjoins the eaves of the main building structure and leads to the immediate and intimate connection of both roof surfaces and their coverings. In the area of the building connection, the shed roof ridge and the eaves of the main roof lose their functions and designations.

If that really were the case, then the exterior wall on the right side at the Schwörerhaus would represent the eaves height. On the left side, it definitely would. Whether that would also be transferable to posts like with the OP is another matter.

Hello,

In my opinion, the roof is not steeper. The house is now 12m wide instead of 10m because of the supports, and therefore the roof is higher.

That can't be, both are 10.00 m.

I know Wikipedia is not necessarily a suitable medium for detailed questions, but at least it states

Today I have a reason to celebrate, I actually don’t have his permission to spend time here … but still (I don’t want the other mods to have to do all the work alone [at least temporarily[): rarely have I read such nonsense (I dislike Wiki for exactly this reason) ...

It changes nothing. The section shown by the OP only varies in the sloped porch roof; the rest has remained unchanged. If you look closely at the OP’s drawing (I am slowly really wondering if it is occupational therapy behind it), the eaves are identical in both examples.

Regards from the Rhineland

The Schwörerhaus definitely has no carport. The extended roof by approx. 2 meters closes again at the bottom, it is open in the middle. Thus, besides two covered courtyards, a higher knee wall is created, purely imaginary so to speak. You cheat, but builders have their beloved higher knee wall.

Again

maybe the eaves height doesn't play a role in the issue at all? By the way, the Schwörerhaus has no carport

The definition of the eaves is the same nationwide,

I think, apart from a specified eaves height (by the way, I have not read that the eaves height is specified), that the building authority simply does not want a higher knee wall - hence the suggestion with the posts
And here again the S. house with the entrance area: The house is symmetrical from the ridge on the gable side, so classic, the exterior wall itself is recessed, so that a higher hidden knee wall is created.


Source: Schwörerhaus

I have also found a court ruling which basically states that the eaves height is not defined by law anywhere. For this reason, the development plan usually specifies what is to be understood by the eaves height. (which has not yet been considered in this thread) This already contradicts the statement by Bauexperte that it is the same nationwide. Furthermore, it states that often the virtual intersection of the outer wall with the upper edge of the roof surface is understood as the eaves height. The question is what the building authority understands as the outer wall in the case of the Schwörer house.

Hello,

I also found a court ruling which essentially states that the eaves height is not defined anywhere by law.

I assume you mean the OVG NRW ruling from 03.05.10? If that is the case, the commentary on the ruling refers to the lack of specification of the eaves height in the development plan. Therefore it states:

**"The term eaves height is not defined in the development plan and is also not determined by law. It therefore requires interpretation. According to this, eaves height is understood as the distance between the natural or otherwise bindingly established ground surface and the cutting edge of the rising masonry with the outer surface of the roof covering. This means the height of the roof connection. It is not to be based on any arbitrary intersection of a roof with the outside of the rising masonry. Rather, it is to be based on the lower edge of the relevant outer roof surface, from which - in the case of pitched roofs - the rainwater drips off."

PS: I do not consider the last sentence to be particularly well formulated.

What is correct, on the other hand, is that in the vast majority of development plans there are specifications on maximum eaves or ridge heights. In the cases where a design manual is issued (imho only for municipally sold plots, i.e. new development areas), the calculation method for the eaves or ridge can be found.

I just looked up one of the latest development plans (Kerpen) we had to observe. Under the point "measure of structural use" there is also no calculation method, but only the numerical repetition of the maximum values. In the related textual provisions it merely states:

[*]The eaves or ridge heights are set relative to a reference point.

Note: The respective plot-related reference points are named in a height register, which is a binding part of this development plan. The reference height is in each case the final construction height of the access road set for each plot.

That already contradicts the statement from Bauexperte that it is the same nationwide.

From the evaluation of construction documents I come to this conclusion; I have examined all federal states so far. In all documents made available to me regarding the plot, nearly the same wording is found, that the eaves are to be understood as the virtual intersection of the rising masonry with the outer surface of the roof covering.

There are exceptions in that the prescribed eaves must be observed on the street side, but a higher knee wall can be formed at the rear. However, I have only encountered this in cases where construction was possible under § 34.

Regarding the example posted by Yvonne, I still think that both eaves sides are identical in height; the mix of facing brick and plaster can, however, be misleading. Clarity would probably only be provided by a picture of the opposite gable side, since the stepped down roof on that side was designed open towards the front.


**Quote from the commentary on the ruling Az.: 7 A 1942//08 OVG NRW

Rhenish greetings