New building with granny flat - general contractor restricts rental and KfW funding

Maybe it's because the legislature cannot anticipate every criminal creativity that people come up with, who are only looking out for their own interests. See tax law Cum Ex deals. Or the scam with plug-in hybrid cars where luxury vehicles of the upper class are promoted and during inspection, in 70% of the cars, the charging cable is found still factory sealed in the trunk.

If a subsidy funded by taxpayers is introduced to create housing, which is in short supply, then the purpose is hardly for individual households to use this to get more living space and money for more living space.

The thing with cum-ex is clear, that's a whole different dimension.

But where is the criminal intent in a self-used granny flat? If I build the house now to then rent it out completely, and a family rents both units, it's basically the same thing.

None of it convinces me, not even morally. According to KFW definition, if you build 2 residential units, you get funding twice. Whether the owner first, then their mother, then someone else or in the end no one uses the apartment is totally irrelevant.

Nothing convinces me, not even morally. Whoever builds 2 residential units according to KFW definition,

It's not about "building 2 apartments," it's about creating external living space (for rent). And whoever now twists the words and only exploits them for themselves with "Blabla, I do that, only," probably also invites more people home than allowed and counts the multi-family house as one household, or what? Why is it considered great and clever to bend rules or words/regulations? That is not clever, it is audacious.

I don't quite understand the excitement.
It's not about renting, but about whether the living space is designed for use by two separate parties.
Whether the use is external rental or multi-generational house is irrelevant for this. However, there must be completely separate usable residential units that meet all requirements.

The OP therefore has the choice to meet all the requirements and take advantage of the funding, or not. It is not possible to simply not meet the requirements and still receive funding.
It should be obvious that the builder points out that these requirements are not met under the current planning.

for rental

what is the basis for this statement? The entire BEG WG guideline says nothing about rental. Only use for residential purposes is specified.

I agree with

What is the basis for this statement? The entire BEG WG guideline says nothing about rental. Only the use for residential purposes is specified.

I see it the same way as

Wanted to put that in parentheses... forgot :D