Land use for semi-detached houses or halves of semi-detached houses

I assume that we are not allowed to build two full floors, but only 1 or 1.5. Because none of the neighboring buildings has 2 full floors.

Compare the planned building with the existing one in terms of building volume. If the viewer then gets the impression that the term semi-detached house has been interpreted as a doubling house, it in any case blends in significantly less discreetly. An example of a case that I find questionable can be found just around the corner here in the forum:

What the insertion requirement refers to is already precisely stated in the law

I saw the hint, you can stop waving now Thanks for the summary, that is very helpful!

What do you want to do differently than the neighbors?

Actually, it’s just about giving the attic as high a knee wall as possible, so as to gain space there and so that the sloping ceilings don’t disturb the rooms so much.

For me, a no-go!

At our first consultation with a prefabricated house provider, we also had a design with an integrated garage. With a semi-detached house width of 6.76m, however, that was rather unfavorable from my point of view. However, back then we were not yet clever enough to ask about widening the house. With a later provider we brought up the topic of house widening and they quoted 90cm for 26k extra. It would definitely be an option if you don’t need so much space in the basement anyway. We still have to research and consider what we want and what is important to us.

Compare the planned building with the existing one regarding the building volume.

OK, let’s do that:



Here I assume a ground area of 7 meters width x 10 meters depth for one of the new semi-detached houses, which can still be increased if necessary, as the plot certainly allows that. So in terms of house size, it will not make a big difference in the street view.

To fill the crystal ball a bit with images, this is the existing house:






The current basement / lower floor is very low; at 1.86m tall, I almost hit my head on the ceiling. That would therefore be raised somewhat. What clear ceiling height is appropriate there if the entrance area should also be in this storey, around 2.35m?

The current attic is also quite low. Overall, the house would probably end up a bit (let’s say 1m) higher than the current one. Since the plot lies in a slight depression (the street slopes up slightly on both sides), raising the height would probably align it level with the neighboring buildings in height but not necessarily make it higher.

From my subjective point of view, a smaller roof pitch would also fit in wonderfully.

... is not subject to the integration requirement

Do I understand this correctly? If someone builds according to §34 and all the houses around have red gable roofs, can I still assume that I am allowed to build a black hipped roof because it is not subject to the integration requirement?

To fill the crystal ball with some pictures, this here is the existing house:

Yes, with pictures you can get an idea.
I had a look around the area. Planning-wise, it's a real jumble, which works very much in your favor. You can almost do whatever you want, as long as you don't exceed the eaves and ridge heights of the immediate neighbors.

Around 2.35m?

No. In new construction it should be 2.50m, for compelling reasons, which I don't see here, 2.40m.

From my subjective point of view, a smaller roof pitch would also fit wonderfully.

The roof pitch is not a direct criterion according to §34, but it results indirectly from the maximum eaves and ridge heights. Since these are maximum values, there is room to vary, at first assessment here even quite generously.

Do I understand this correctly? If someone builds according to §34 and all houses around have red gabled roofs, then I can still assume that I am allowed to build a black hipped roof, as it is not subject to the integration requirement?

Yes. If it's important to the municipality, they have to enact a design or townscape statute.

Your left neighbor looks taller in the pictures. Or is that an illusion?

You can almost do whatever you want, as long as you don’t exceed the eave and ridge heights of the immediate neighbors.

From where are you measuring? The street seems to slope slightly upwards to the left, right?

I hadn’t realized it was so hilly.

From where are you measuring?

Yes, one can argue whether to compare the absolute heights above NHN or the relative heights to a reference point. In the latter case, one can also argue whether to take the terrain at the house, the street, or the middle of the property boundary. However, since §34 is only a rough guideline, the approval authority can hardly refuse a reasonable plan with a coherent evidence of integration.
If you look at the buildings in the parallel street, this is also not to be expected here. But even the immediate surroundings with the receded house on the adjacent property, two plots further a two-story building, several houses with shallow roof pitches about a hundred meters away, extensions with flat roofs, and roof structures of all kinds everywhere. I would not expect overly great restrictions here.