Problems with the building authority due to soil slips and retaining walls!

Hello everyone,

first of all, I only need an assessment of the situation, whether I am the fool here and have misunderstood something or whether the building authority does not know its own wording. So this is not meant to be legal advice from your side.

The text statute of the development plan states: ****An embankment of the terrain to the building to manage height differences is possible. Slopes and retaining walls (also on the boundary) are permissible up to a height of 0.6 m. Slopes and retaining walls exceeding this may exceptionally be permitted, provided the consent of the directly affected neighbors is obtained. However, a site plan must be submitted, clearly showing both the necessity and the urban design impact.****

I have now created a first draft with my architects (1.55m L-sides) with the note that we still want to obtain the neighbors' consent.

The building authority's only response to this is that only 0.6m L-walls are permissible and nothing higher will be approved. **That would leave me without a single straight piece of property**

So you can imagine that I was completely taken aback.

I read the paragraph as follows: If I have the consent of my neighbors, I can build L-walls as high as I want, as this is the only prerequisite to do so (and I have to submit a plan - but here too, nothing is said about the plan requiring approval).

However, if one of the neighbors does not agree, I have to stick to the 0.6m. Which is fine.

If the building authority does not adhere to its own wording in the development plan, I would have to clarify this legally.

What is your assessment?

The ...exceptionally permitted... refers to the neighbor and not to the arbitrariness of the building authority. (I hope so)

The joke is that the building authority wrote to me on Thursday that... an exception to the old boundaries (I border directly on the old building area on the left) will be made because the neighbor has 2m-L-stones.

I call that arbitrariness and impudence.

Beyond that, embankments and retaining walls may be exceptionally permitted, provided the consent of the directly affected neighbor(s) is obtained. However, a site plan must be submitted that clearly shows both the necessity and the urban design impact.

The ... exceptionally permitted ... refers to the neighbor and not to the arbitrariness of the building authority. (I hope so)

No; first the neighbors, and then your architect can argue with the building authority.

Slopes and retaining walls (also boundary-adjacent) are permitted up to a height of 0.6 m. Slopes and retaining walls exceeding this height may be exceptionally permitted, provided that the consent of the directly affected neighbor(s) is obtained.

It clearly states: over 0.6 m is an exception; permitting means of course "upon application"; without neighbor consent it would only be absolutely prohibitive, which does not automatically mean approval with neighbor consent.

However, a site plan must be submitted clearly showing both the necessity and the urban design impact.

This signals that you cannot simply "jack up" the house with a half-bastion.
The development area is clearly not intended to be terraced with L-blocks for slab houses.

because the neighbor has 2m L-blocks. I call that arbitrariness and insolence.

No arbitrariness, the principle of discretionary power binding applies (which cannot be pulled out of thin air).

it says 'can exceptionally be permitted, insofar as' and not 'are exceptionally permitted, insofar as' and refers to the building authority.

Don't make me weak. That also applies to at least 5 neighbors to my right. They have the same problem. No one will have a piece of straight land!