Preliminary building inquiry before purchasing property okay, can this information be trusted?

There are no town villas nearby... Many houses from the 30s with all kinds of extensions. Among others, also some with 2 full floors.. Bungalows can also be found in the building area... We have an appointment with the architect next week...

Thank you very much for the quick responses...

Regards Martin

How does the construction project relate to the existing houses that are directly adjacent, or what do the residents say about your plan? Because this can and will be the reason the whole thing fails. And if not before the construction, then after the construction...

What the official says is not worth a penny if he changes his mind tomorrow or has "misunderstood" something. We also built according to §34 and our construction plan had to go through 3!!! instances. Once the municipal council, then the collective municipality, and then the district administration. The first two instances were only recommendations; the actual decision was made in the district administration. So be careful whom you ask here.

Keep in mind that your bunker will become a huge block that will either block the neighbors' light or even cause problems with the chimney distance if you build much higher.

If you want something reliable, then only in writing. I would not rely on anything else. As far as I know, under §34, the architect later bears the responsibility that it was built correctly. So it can happen that an architect refuses to build as you want without a written commitment.

Hello Der Da,

As far as I know, with §34 the architect later bears the responsibility that it was built correctly.

That is not quite correct, although an architect is always liable.

§ 34 means according to the individual regulation: (1) Within the built-up parts of a locality, a project is permissible if it fits the character of the immediate surroundings in terms of the type and extent of land use, the construction method, and the plot area to be built on, and if the development is secured. The requirements for healthy living and working conditions must be maintained; the appearance of the locality must not be impaired. [...]

Since, in the case of § 34, it almost never leads to an exemption procedure, the normal building application is the measure of all things. This means that the authority reviews and approves or not; also checks at regular intervals on the construction site to see if the contents of the building permit have been complied with. The responsibility for the procedure itself therefore remains with the reviewing authority in this case. The architect thus "only" bears the liability that construction is carried out according to the issued building permit and only insofar as he accompanies the construction as the construction manager during the construction phase. Otherwise, his liability is limited to the plans.

Regards from the Rhineland

As far as I know, with §34 it is also the case that the architect later bears the responsibility that the construction was done correctly. So it can happen that an architect refuses to build the way you want without a written agreement.

It is not built "the way you want" anyway, but rather as approved by the competent building authority in the qualified building application – which is mandatory here and cannot be replaced/evaded by the simplified approval procedure.

You can save yourself the path through the "lower instances" if you submit the building application directly at the correct authority, because the local/lower authorities will then be consulted/queried in the course of the approval.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe