Proof that the demolition object is free - Berlin

Yes, for me it was the housing office. At the BA Marzahn-Hellersdorf there was a separate email address for misuse. I always wrote emails and they then responded by mail and possibly by phone (I don't remember exactly). Email is apparently not considered secure enough, even though I sent a document for them to communicate with me by email. I simply sent the photos of the folding rule on the wall/ceiling.

@Tolention Thank you for the quick feedback! I have now done exactly that, just for the appropriate district. Let's see when the first mounted messenger of the housing office knocks at my gate / I receive the first letter.

A brief update for all involved:
Apparently, every housing office in Berlin handles the issue of misuse and negative certificates differently.

My inquiry was:
[INDENT

I can provide the following details in advance.[/INDENT]


[*]Single-family house in timber frame construction, built in 1970. The planned lifespan of the house is/was 40 years.
[LIST]
[*]The exterior façade consists of asbestos concrete (Eternit panels), as can be seen from the building description (my grandfather neatly filed everything). Since my wife is asthmatic, this is of course particularly bad.
[*]The clear room height on the upper floor is everywhere 247 cm or less.
[*]The clear room height on the ground floor is everywhere 249.5 cm or less.

Is there a possibility to obtain a negative certificate from your authority based on the listed features?
How should I submit the evidence (photos/files/documents) so that you can review it most conveniently?

I received the following answer from the Steglitz-Zehlendorf housing office:
A negative certificate you mentioned can only be issued by my authority if a permit is not required for a misuse of living space (in this case its elimination).

However, the elimination of living space is currently a project requiring application and approval according to the Misuse Prohibition Act. As part of an application, the builder must submit an alternative housing offer to the authority. During processing, it will be checked whether the offered alternative housing meets the requirements set for it and whether the construction project is financially secured. Only then can a demolition permit be issued.

If, on the other hand, you take the view that the existing building should no longer be considered protected living space to which the Misuse Prohibition Act therefore does not apply, you must prove this to the authority by submitting a negative yield calculation. However, it should be noted that in this calculation, follow-up costs from neglected maintenance, even if based on omissions of the previous owner, are disregarded as expenses..

When I inquired by phone about the clear room height being under 250 cm, the official told me that this is generally correct but only one of many evaluation criteria. Given that people have lived in the property for years, it must be assumed that it is protected living space, regardless of the clear room height. The only way she saw was the "negative yield calculation" she mentioned.

However, this negative yield calculation sounds very complex. I can imagine that it is worth the effort for a rental building, but for the planned demolition of a single-family house and the planned replacement by a single-family or two-family house, it seems too complicated to me.

[*]Or has anyone had experience overcoming the Misuse Prohibition Act through a "negative yield calculation" and can say whether it is worthwhile or not?

Summary:
A negative certificate obviously depends on the subjective goodwill of the caseworker and in my case it will unfortunately not work by this uncomplicated way.

Oh dear, the people in Steglitz are probably just stricter. Actually funny, I would have thought it's more difficult in the East. In the end, proving the created replacement living space isn't bad either, as long as you don't want to rent it out. For the negative return calculation, might have an idea...

In general, our ideal scenario (we are still in the pre-planning phase) is to build two full floors and to live in them ourselves as a family, but at the same time to have the option, in the absolute worst-case scenario (existential private or global economic crisis), to downsize and then only occupy one "unit" ourselves and generate income by renting out the other unit, or much later, when the child(ren) have left the house and we, for example, no longer need that much space (maybe in about 25-35 years), to have the option to rent out both units to supplement our retirement and enjoy our retirement in the Uckermark... or elsewhere far away from civilization. Regarding those frightening 9€ you mentioned in a previous post:

[*]Does that also apply in the scenario I described? [*]Is it even relevant given the long time horizon? [*]Especially in the worst-case scenario, that would naturally prove to be critical [*]Who came up with this completely unrealistic figure? --> Rhetorical question

Let me put it this way: With 9€ per sqm I could definitely create a "negative return calculation"...

[*]Does this also apply in the scenario I described

In my opinion, yes. Although there could be exceptions if the rented rooms are in an owner-occupied apartment. So here you are not officially pursuing the separation of two residential units for any subsidies, but rather building one residential unit and later in the worst case renting out one or more rooms (in which there can also be a kitchenette).

[*]Is this relevant at all given the long time horizon?

I seem to remember the caseworker said something about 10 years, but I don’t really have that present anymore and certainly don’t have anything in writing. You would have to put your Google-Fu to work...

[*]Especially in the worst-case scenario this would of course prove critical

That’s right.

[*]Who came up with this completely unrealistic number? --> Rhetorical question

No idea.

I’ll say this: With 9€ per sqm I could definitely produce a "negative return calculation"...

True!