Municipal development plan insufficiently executed, what applies?

I may have expressed myself unclearly. No preliminary building inquiry has been submitted yet. We actually want to avoid this, as it would probably delay the entire project by about three months. Even though the real estate agent would apparently agree to it. The plot would be reserved for a correspondingly long time.

I had an appointment today with a lawyer specializing in public building law. It was an initial consultation. He could not make concrete statements due to the lack of specific plans. We went through the current/changed development plan. According to him, the main focus is on the "single-storey" aspect. A second full storey is definitely excluded, which was basically clear to us anyway. We don’t want that either.
As long as the second storey is designed as a recessed storey, it should therefore not be rejected. It just needs to be properly presented by the architect in the building application.

Paragraph 2 Lower Saxony Building Code
“(7) 1A full storey is an above-ground storey that has a clear height of 2.20 m or more over at least half of its floor area. 2A top storey is only a full storey if it has the clear height mentioned in sentence 1 over more than two-thirds of the floor area of the storey below it.”

He also said that although the municipality would see the building application, the decision still lies with the district authority.

We hope to receive three, possibly even four offers from regional builders next week. Then we will give it further thought. All follow the principle of subordination. Trying to get a waiver is probably pointless since the development plan was only recently changed.

Indeed. In most cases and usually also the captain’s dormers that turn a one-story building into a two-story one.

With the classic captain’s dormer, it would be like this: it has a knee wall, and the main roof does not. The one I would call "captain’s dormer 21" of the newer architectural style, however, is designed as a continuation of a main roof that has a knee wall and mostly adopts its height. And I would also consider this form permissible here.

Maybe you should adapt to the OP and fellow discussants and also speak of the knee wall

If that were a matter of hair-splitting and if these were widely assumed to be synonyms, I might do so. But they are simply opposing concepts, similar to a transverse dormer and a dormer. From a building culture perspective, in most regions there were almost exclusively knee walls or knee walls, and only newcomers introduced the other variant, which was then also called like the traditional one. In the present case, we are dealing with a knee wall; they may gladly call it a knee wall, but I of course will not promote this terminological confusion.

Perhaps I expressed myself unclearly. No preliminary building inquiry has been submitted yet.

Exactly ...

We will try to have the desired plot reserved again if possible; in the meantime, I canceled the reservation because I was fed up, and we ask to maintain this reservation until the decision of the preliminary building inquiry.

... and if it was not a preliminary building inquiry, then what on earth is this supposed negative signal about?

I had an appointment today with a lawyer specializing in public building law. [...] According to him, the main focus is on the "single-story nature". A second full story is excluded in any case, which was basically clear to us anyway. We don’t want that either. As long as the second story is designed as a setback floor, it should not lead to a rejection. It just needs to be properly presented by the architect in the building application.

You are making me more and more curious about the basis of the rejection experienced by the municipality. I have not yet encountered a case where on the one hand a vacuum cleaner knee wall was considered sacred without, on the other hand, a setback floor (mostly opposed by eave height limits) being rejected.

Next week we hopefully will receive three, possibly four offers from local builders. Then we will think further. All follow the principle of subordination. There’s probably no point in trying for an exemption since the development plan was recently changed.

You want the builders each to develop proposals that comply with the development plan? – An exemption only has poor prospects insofar as it explicitly aims at the greatest evil to be warded off by the change; other exemptions are not doomed to rejection as a matter of principle.

He also said that the municipality would see the building application but that the decision still lies with the district.

The concept of the district as the decisive authority and the municipality as a mere stamping station is, to my knowledge, the clearly rarer one. I know it more widely spread that the municipality itself examines the content and forwards the application with a recommendation to the district, which usually concurs and only conducts a thorough own review in case of appeals. Especially with a favorable recommendation from the municipality, the district almost never bothers to critically examine it (unless one wants to block the view of an important taxpayer/party donor who has already suitably influenced the official). At some point I have to write a fundamental article about the division of tasks of district-affiliated municipalities ;-)

I actually expressed myself unclearly, that was not my intention.

As of now, there is only the verbal rejection regarding the gable from the municipality. The statement on the phone was quite clear. Possibly another misunderstanding?

Previously, we visited various contractors to have initial discussions and requested quotes. Of course, always with the reference to the development plan. However, since the statements about feasibility in connection with the development plan were sometimes inconsistent, I made the mentioned phone call to the municipality. Since they were, as already mentioned, very clear, I initially stepped back. Probably also knowing that the municipality adds its input in the approval process.

The recent phone call with the district office and the consultation with the lawyer give us hope that a captain’s gable might be possible and approvable there.

We asked the companies that made it to the final selection to prepare the offers as requested; I had temporarily stopped this. In case of doubt, a preliminary building inquiry would then have to be initiated, with documents from the contractor we like the most. Which in theory should not actually be necessary. We would then like to submit a building application immediately.

I actually expressed myself unclearly, that was not my intention.

As of now, there is only the verbal rejection regarding the gable from the municipality. The statement on the phone was quite clear. Possibly another misunderstanding?
(...)

What makes you believe that the authority's opinion will change if you submit it officially in writing?

A municipality cannot simply disregard applicable law. If the building application is prepared accordingly and a "single-storey" is proven, then in theory there is nothing against it. Of course, the safer way would probably be through the preliminary building inquiry. We will probably not make a decision before next week.

I can only recommend submitting a building inquiry. My brother wanted to save time and money because his architect believed everything had been adjusted to comply with the development plan, although pushed to the limit. In this case, it was about a vaguely worded eaves height restriction and the reference point for it. The bottom line: the building application was rejected, and everything is now taking much longer and costing much more because the legal route is being taken. But my brother is also a real stubborn Westphalian, and now it’s a matter of principle for him. Currently, he wants to sue God and the world. I would have preferred to invest the time and money in house planning.