I was just thinking about the HB advertisement – who’s going to lose their temper there right away.
Be a bit creative. You can install the 1.75 fixed and make the rest as a "mobile roof.” Fix it with wing screws or something similar and show that you can remove it anytime and store it in the garage. If you don’t do that, no one will be mad. You can also leave an umbrella open all year round. You can also set up the patio roof completely separate from the house. Then it’s not attached to the house. You create the transition with an overhang or something mobile. You technically build a separate fixed tent that, in practice, makes no difference to a fixed roof.
Once again on the strategy:
I probably wasn’t detailed enough with my description “Go to the office first with a good explanation” means appear in person and find a joint solution. Only then submit exactly that. That’s the only way to be somewhat sure that the permit will be granted and that it’s not a shot in the dark. That saves extra rounds and loss of time. The 4 weeks are okay. Of course, if you then have to submit an amended application, you have another 4 weeks.
Thank you very much! I will think about alternatives; I honestly didn’t think that I could set up a tent almost independently of the house.
By the way, about the strategy, I completely agree with you. I was already at the office for such plans, but they don’t want to cooperate because they don’t feel like working. Even if some here don’t believe me. They don’t bother to familiarize themselves, don’t open the files, reject something outright (like my bay window back then) that they should actually approve, and then later even have it in writing…. The people are nice but unbelievably lazy; a normal consultation is hardly possible.
That’s why I had to take this route: I first applied for what I want, maybe it’ll get approved. Now they will deal with it properly and the appointment on Thursday will be better; they will listen and advise, and if something is missing, they will tell me because they know there is a building preliminary inquiry submitted to them, and they HAVE to act. That’s why this is already okay to get into talks with the office; I have to proceed like this. That way, I have first fought for what I want. And now they advise as well, and if there are problems, I’ll have to make compromises, look for solutions, but then they will be quick in processing. Somewhere, I had to start.
The building preliminary inquiry is therefore for exceeding the patio roof, and now they are checking, reading up, seeing where it is, advising, and if they disagree during the process, I will negotiate and, if necessary, submit new applications to get it approved. It doesn’t work any other way here at the office. They don’t even bother to reply generally, except that the women in urban planning are better. But the gentleman who has to grant the permit literally gets out of breath when he has to pick up the phone. A somewhat different sequence, but it was similar with the bay window already: everything refused over the phone, not even proper information, then I applied everything in writing and after 100 forms that had to be submitted, it got approved. No matter what you submit, the office always claims something is missing, so this way is better for me: I submit it, and then it starts; depending on what they want, I submit additional documents, conduct negotiations and talks. When we agree, I will formally resubmit the application. That then is only a formality. I am curious. The alternatives you mentioned sound good too. Because I thought a 4m deep roof would darken my living room inside anyway. So let’s see.