Terrace planning for a corner terraced house with a large garden - What to consider?

That sounds like you are speaking at the administrative level. For decisions out of the ordinary, you need decision-makers with the appropriate competency framework. The clerks then implement what has been decided.

What is a decision-maker supposed to decide here with a competence framework? 1.75m is okay, anything beyond that is not.

It's funny that you, who doesn't want to build with an architect, are now getting creative about how to bypass the approval... with attachments that are mounted and removed with wing screws when the inspection comes, or similar.

By the way, a competent boss does not override or revise the decisions of their employees as long as they are correct or within the scope of discretion. Even if you chat about wing screws and parasols over coffee and cake...
Did you get that from "Project management for beginners, this could work"?

What is a decision-maker supposed to decide with a competence framework here?

An exemption permit, of course, what else? It often works in my environment. We have already established that we have different worlds of experience.

By the way, a competent boss does not override or revise the decisions of his employees,

Agreed. That’s exactly why it makes sense to talk to decision-makers and not first to specialists. The order was wrong here. Reversing it is challenging because everyone has to be able to save face.

It’s funny that especially you, who doesn’t want to build with an architect

Where do you suck that out of your finger again...

That sounds like you’re speaking on the level of clerical processing. For decisions outside the normal course, you need decision-makers with the appropriate authority. The clerical staff then implement what has been decided.

No, definitely not. I’m talking to decision-makers. They might also be overloaded with work or whatever, but the work ethic and what I have experienced with them is just crazy. They hardly make any statements, don’t help further, recommend the path that involves the least effort for them, or rather, so that no request comes in; you have to extract everything from them. Only when they know there is a document, a request, that they have to take action, do they do so, then they talk, look into it, advise, get involved, and then I negotiate. Before that, they’re already out of breath just answering an email. As I said, it was similar with the building permit; we had a property that was divided among 3 parties, and then there were 3 parking spaces with separate plot numbers divided between 2 houses, and we have a communal area that is divided among all 3 again. So our property consists of 3 parcels. For this reason, we were a difficult case for the building authority; at first, I defended them because our architect wasn’t any better either. I sorted out the matter with the office myself, then I noticed that every action they have to take they call “effort.” The best was when one employee was working from home. At home office they have neither a PC, NOR files, nor access to anything, no phone; you’re not transferred since they only have the private number… What do they do at home office then? By the way, they are only reachable by phone or in person twice a week, meaning I have to take time off during my working hours. Maybe that’s the case in every authority, but I have really never seen such work ethic. The gentlemen are polite and friendly though, I always smiled and cursed our architect when the office did it, because the 1000 documents were always missing again, just to get through. Yes, the architect could have just done that once, even if it made no sense what they wanted, but they weren’t without fault either, and the architect had never dealt with such a building authority before.

They hardly make any statements, don’t help, recommend the way that requires the least effort for them, i.e. no inquiry should come in, had to extract everything from them. Only when they know there are papers, an inquiry is submitted, and they have to take action, do they do it, then they talk, look, advise, familiarize themselves, and then I negotiate.

It should also be said that the building authority is not fundamentally your advisory office, but "only" responsible for the approvals or inspections of the construction processes. That is why there are architects who should prepare suitable templates. Analogously, it is the same with the tax office; they are also not responsible for your advice, there are tax consultants for that. Of course, some employees gladly give tips and recommendations, but especially in the case of construction planning, the overall project should be available in writing, because answers to partial aspects are often misleading.

They are not allowed to advise at all. However, they must answer truthfully. So if you go and ask, "Can I build a 4m soundso, is that approvable?", they have to tell the truth when they answer. But not, "How do I have to build it so that it becomes approvable?" and that's why they only do it orally, so they can't be pinned down to an ad hoc statement. Or they simply respond that you should make a preliminary inquiry, because it's too complicated. Personally, under the circumstances described, I would also build without a fixed roof but with a fixed or partially retractable sunshade. If you really want to sit outside in the rain, then either a freestanding pavilion or the 1.75m roof extension, under which you can sit when it rains, as long as the wind doesn’t come from the front... But well, now you’ve already asked. I wish you that it goes through, but I don’t believe in it. Because rejection is easier for them, if what you describe is true.