Setback areas for entrance stairs and their roofing

Hello everyone!

Does anyone have experience with the distance regulations for entrance stairs and their canopies in Rhineland-Palatinate?

Our building authority is complaining about the entrance stairs and their canopy (see attached picture).

In the Rhineland-Palatinate State Building Code it says:

"Building parts projecting in front of the wall such as pillars, cornices, eaves, box windows, entrance stairs and their canopies

as well as

subordinate projections such as bay windows and balconies

are not considered when calculating the depth of the distance area, provided they do not project more than 1.50 m; they must remain at least 2 m away from the opposite property boundary."

However, the two meters from the last sentence apparently only apply to property boundaries adjacent to neighboring properties, not to property boundaries facing the street.

(1) Staircase

Our building authority is complaining because the last step of the entrance staircase projects more than the 1.50 m from the building line towards the street. The step is 18 cm high... Well, maybe we can move the house 30 cm towards the garden, then the 1.50 m would be met again.

(2) Entrance canopy

The entrance canopy (projects 90 cm from the exterior wall) not only extends over the front door but forms a canopy on the street side about 7 meters wide. The entire house wall is 8.70 m wide there. (See attached pictures)

The building authority argues that this is not a subordinate projection because the component would take up more than a third of the house width. Therefore, the canopy should not protrude beyond the building line, not even by 1.50 m. The one-third rule is apparently a common method to assess whether a component is subordinate. However, I read the above quoted text as follows:

The following objects are not considered when calculating the depth of the distance area, provided they do not project more than 1.50 m:
- Building parts projecting in front of the wall such as pillars, cornices, eaves, box windows, entrance stairs and their canopies
- subordinate projections such as bay windows and balconies
That means only for projections such as bay windows and balconies does it have to be checked whether they are subordinate; for building parts projecting in front of the wall such as entrance stairs and their canopies, there is no obligation that they must be subordinate projections.

If the building authority insists on their view, we would have to either

a) make the entrance canopy narrower (2.90 m instead of 7.00 m), which we don’t like at all, or

b) omit the entrance canopy in favor of a normal glass porch roof, or

c) move the house 90 cm towards the garden so that the entrance canopy remains within the building line.

Best regards

jx7

Looks bad, the AR should also know that.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

Yes, it looks like there are clear violations of the Landesbauordnung RLP in the planning...

I found something else:

The city of Duisburg basically says: For entrance canopies with supports, side parts, or walls, the same distance regulations apply as for the building itself, because they are not subordinate components.
(Source: Homepage of the city of Duisburg, found via google search "Duisburg Eingangsüberdachungen")

Regards
jx7

The corresponding regulations in the states are similar but not transferable 1:1. If the property allows it, simply move the house; if not, you just go up to a maximum of 1/3 of the house width – it's not a big deal.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

The situation with the stairs is probably clear: the building envelope may only be exceeded by 1.50 m. Our architect has admitted the mistake. Regarding the entrance canopy, it seems that other authorities, e.g. the building authority Ingelheim (neighboring town), have a different opinion, namely that pure canopies are generally subordinate building components.
Moving the house is not so easy and is currently being clarified. Aside from the development plan and the building authority – for whom it would not matter – there is also a building manual and a design council from the company selling the plots, and in contrast to the development plan, the building manual actually prescribes a building line and not a building boundary. But perhaps the design council is more flexible regarding exceptions than the building authority.
Our possible solutions therefore depend heavily on the decision of the design council.
(1) Let us assume that the design advisory board insists on the building line in such a way that the house may not be moved towards the garden.
Then the planned entrance canopy (balcony-like, but not walkable, 30 cm thick, 7 meters wide) would have to be omitted in favor of a simple glass porch that fulfills the one-third rule.
Regarding the stairs, we could switch to stairs running along the street-side wall of the house leading to the parking space, which, however, appear far less open and inviting than the planned stairs, which have steps to the side and front.
Alternatively, we could reduce the number of steps to 4 in order to stay within the 1.50 m. Several measures would be necessary for this:
The house would need 10 cm less of a plinth, we would require a slope of 6 degrees in the driveway, and the steps would have to be smaller (18.5 cm x 26 cm instead of 18 cm x 27 cm).
(2) Let us assume the design advisory board approves the shifting of the house towards the garden.
We would then definitely move the house 30 cm back in order to be able to realize the entrance stairs as planned, without having to set the house 10 cm lower and having a 6% incline in the driveway.
Possibly, we would also move the house further 60 cm towards the garden in order to realize the entrance canopy as planned. That depends a bit on which alternative entrance canopies conforming to the state building code we find.

Only communication helps here because you have different boundary conditions => task of the architect.

Facts situation NRW (I come from NRW, legal situation RP may differ):

I usually recommend to my clients in such cases to adhere to the schedule of the building authority, because everything else costs a lot of time and money. If the roofing is absolutely necessary, one would have to come to terms with a building encumbrance in NRW, possibly also obtain neighborhood consent, the additional costs for surveying services alone are definitely over €1000 net (this can be regulated completely differently in RP!). At this point it is usually settled.

I would therefore come to terms with 1/3 and keep an eye on the shift of 30cm, which in my estimation brings you more. But as I said, much can also be achieved through communication with the building regulatory office and the design advisory board.

Best regards Dirk Grafe