SandyBlack
2022-02-06 13:20:15
- #1
Yes, I understood that (I thought so ;) ). But then why is the idea of planning 170 sqm being dropped?
Maybe I expressed myself awkwardly in my initial post. When I referred to the square meter figures in the floor plans, I always meant the living area – i.e., spread over the two full floors.
If I stick with the example from post #3, in a house with exterior dimensions of 12 x 9.5 meters, I have a built-up area of 114 sqm.
I calculated: 477 * 0.3 = 143.1 sqm, plus 50% of that for ancillary areas would be about 71 sqm.
In this example, I would therefore still have 143.1 sqm – 114 sqm + 71 sqm = 100 sqm "left over" for ancillary areas.
Is it unrealistic to get by with that?
If it matters: Our development plan dates from 1989 – therefore the 1986 Building Use Ordinance should apply to us.
Sorry, I can no longer update the initial post. So here are the plans again, each with north marked. I hope it is understandable. I rotated the development plan so that the orientation matches in all plans.

Maybe I expressed myself awkwardly in my initial post. When I referred to the square meter figures in the floor plans, I always meant the living area – i.e., spread over the two full floors.
If I stick with the example from post #3, in a house with exterior dimensions of 12 x 9.5 meters, I have a built-up area of 114 sqm.
I calculated: 477 * 0.3 = 143.1 sqm, plus 50% of that for ancillary areas would be about 71 sqm.
In this example, I would therefore still have 143.1 sqm – 114 sqm + 71 sqm = 100 sqm "left over" for ancillary areas.
Is it unrealistic to get by with that?
If it matters: Our development plan dates from 1989 – therefore the 1986 Building Use Ordinance should apply to us.
Sorry, I can no longer update the initial post. So here are the plans again, each with north marked. I hope it is understandable. I rotated the development plan so that the orientation matches in all plans.