Uncertainty regarding the knee wall as a building regulation in the development plan

Hello everyone,

The residential area where we would like to build is now in the home stretch (public display, planning for development as well as awarding contracts still this year). Reason enough for me to take a closer look at the development plan.

The building regulations include the following, among other things:


My questions regarding this:

The location of WA1 is clear to me, here it is possible (not mandatory) to build classic urban villas with two full floors. In the WA2 area, I would say that you will find the classic 1.5-story single-family houses, meaning a normal ground floor, first floor with sloped ceilings, and then an attic. The WA4 area is a bit unclear to me, or I might not fully understand a term correctly: Here the eaves height is the same as in WA2, but the maximum allowable ridge height is 2m lower (9 vs. 11m). Consequently, the roof pitch is probably flatter here, see 30 to 42° compared to 42 to 48° in WA2. Does this indicate that here it would actually make sense to build "only" bungalows?

My problem with understanding: The indication of the dwarf wall.

As far as I have researched, the dwarf wall is a kind of advanced wall under the roof, something like this:

[IMG width="387px"]https://www.profiheimwerker.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/dg-verkleidung-drempel6-e1553690350536.jpg[/IMG]
In contrast, there is the knee wall, which (according to my understanding) actually means more usable space. Here, the roof is not laid directly on the floor slab but on the knee wall, which corresponds to a wall raised above the floor slab, something like this:


If my understanding here is correct, I absolutely do not understand why a "dwarf wall" should be limited in a development plan? Because how I ultimately use a space (in this case "under the roof") is surely my decision? If I install a drywall partition there (which on the outside is absolutely not visible, but rather resembles a piece of furniture), because, for example, I want to use the cavity (the dwarf wall) behind it as storage space, this should not matter to the building authority, right?

Addendum: Here is the official description of the dwarf wall:

The maximum allowable dwarf wall height is 80cm. It is to be measured on the exterior wall between the top edge of the attic floor and the underside of the rafters. (§84 Abs. 3 Nr. 1 Lower Saxony Building Code)

I hope I was able to clarify my confusion somewhat and look forward to your feedback.

Best regards

In your case: Drempel = knee wall. You can build dry stone walls inside as much as you want but not raise the roof.

Hello,

okay, that means that the 4 or 7 meters specified here as eaves height already include the knee wall (referred to here as Drempel), correct?

Then to my other question:

Is it even reasonably possible to build a single-family house with 1.5 floors in WA4 (maximum ridge height 9m), or do you see no problem with that, and it would make no difference for the first floor but only result in a lower attic or it would disappear entirely?

Best regards

mein Verständnis

... corresponds with the terminology used here in the forum. In real life, the terms are mostly used synonymously (see Wikipedia).

Is it then even reasonably possible to build a single-family house with 1.5 stories in WA4

Yes.

don’t you see any problem there

Yes, I don’t see any problem.

would make no difference for the 1st upper floor

That depends on how large the house is going to be. For a house with a 42° gable roof and a 10m wide gable wall, it makes no difference.

I am glad that you have understood the difference between knee wall and dwarf wall. Your zoning plan issuers prefer to follow common usage, which mixes up the terms. And yes, the knee wall is included in the eaves height, and I thank you for agreeing that it therefore does not require separate regulation. Finally, I am not the "only one" who understands this, but unfortunately, neither of us makes zoning plans ;-)
I see the lower ridge height here as nothing more and nothing less than corresponding to the lower roof pitch – whether the chicken or the egg came first, we do not need to clarify. A house can certainly be built there, and it does not have to be a bungalow.
I personally find the question much more exciting why in WA1 and WA3 there is talk of "4 or 7" meters eaves height. Without explanation, Krause (A-K) applies one and Schulze (L-Z) the other *LOL* or does this refer to the eaves heights "valley" and "ridge" on a slope? – then in my opinion it should say "respectively."

I personally find the question much more interesting as to why in WA1 and WA3 it speaks of "4 or 7" meters of eaves height.

I was not detailed enough there. Here one may but does not have to build two stories.