New house construction in a holiday home settlement

Hello dear experts,

we are slowly starting to plan for our own four walls. Due to our low budget, a new build is only an option under the conditions mentioned below:

Construction is to take place in a holiday area. This holiday area explicitly permits the use of the houses as permanent residences.

According to a brief research based on the Energy Saving Ordinance, it is clear that this only applies to residential houses and does not apply to holiday homes. This would obviously make a huge difference in terms of cost (holiday home vs. residential house).

The question we have is, how does it behave if you build a holiday home in this area and then use it as a permanent residence?

In my assumption, I do not have to comply with the Energy Saving Ordinance because the building permit is granted for a holiday home. The newly built holiday home, in turn, can be used all year round as a residence since the municipality allows this.

Am I correct or am I making a mistake in my thinking?

Thank you very much for any assistance in advance.

Best regards frettchen23

Logical error. The Energy Saving Ordinance, §1, points 8/9, does not apply to residential buildings if the annual usage duration is less than 4 months or the energy consumption is less than 25% of the normal consumption with year-round use. The trick is therefore excluded and also not recommended in relation to building insulation.

So my original plan would theoretically look like this? (total nonsense - I know. it's just about understanding):

1. Building permit (without [Energieeinsparverordnung]) No problem at all - because it's a holiday home. 2. Application for year-round use Rejection because it is not insulated according to [Energieeinsparverordnung]. Expensive additional insulation to meet [Energieeinsparverordnung]. New application = approval

Interesting thought [emoji2]
But then I would immediately plan and get approval for a residential building (including energy saving regulations).

Retrofitting is always more expensive.

Regards, Yvonne

The question is whether a rooster will crow afterwards. So, [Fewogebiet]. Meier applies for a holiday cabin, and he gets it approved even without solar panels and an insulated foil wrap. The thing is built. Meier now spends four weeks vacationing in it. He likes it quite a lot, so he extends and extends and never moves out. He goes to the municipality and registers his permanent residence at Meisenstieg 18. The residents' registration office gratefully accepts this. No one there asks about the energy saving ordinance either. In my opinion, it will go through like that. Or? By the way, it was not asked whether this is reasonable or whether it makes sense to circumvent the energy saving ordinance. Only whether it could work. I think so. Karsten

Karsten, now you’re really surprising me. Especially with you guys, where the hare and the hedgehog know each other and visit the village tavern together, something like that should be an open book about what was approved and what wasn’t. Where we live, an envious neighbor wouldn’t just be surprised but would actually visit the authorities and stupidly ask what’s going on with the permanent guest. Besides, there are no rule-violating intentional proposals here ;) Because that can really become more expensive than expected – better to build according to the rules, a bit smaller and cheaper :) Best regards, Yvonne