Winter garden conversion - building permit required or permit-free?

Since your project does not meet any of the conditions in §60 Bauordnung LSA, it is not exempt from the procedure. Whether an exemption from the permit requirement is possible under §61 depends on whether there is a qualified development plan and, if so, whether the project complies with the stipulations. However, due to the year of construction, I suspect that a simplified approval procedure according to §62 is necessary. I agree with the advice of and recommend a consultation with the approval authority. They also provide information about the expected processing times.

I will try to simply explain the correct statements of my predecessor:

Procedural freedom)
There are rules in the state building codes that exempt entire groups of possible projects from requiring an application procedure. This concerns very typical construction projects such as a new single-family house without special requests deviating from the development plan.

Qualified development plan)
Development plans usually specify for several whole houses or property blocks how high and dense etc. the construction is allowed to be there. These are regularly issued for the development of new building areas – and just as regularly not in old village cores, where (almost) every plot is already built on. In that case, firstly other rules apply and secondly usually no exceptions to the requirement of an application procedure.

Simplified procedure)
Nevertheless, for projects where it is fairly straightforward to determine whether all the regulations in the plan are being followed, there can be simpler procedures.

About the procedure duration: a former neighbor of mine would have said: "Doris, put on something sleeveless, and then we’ll go to the director" – seriously: that is actually often the right magic trick, to personally go to the responsible person and submit the complete documents in a friendly conversation. You can clarify questions immediately there, sometimes you get the stamp on the spot and even good tips.

With bad luck, the responsible clerk is a desk-warmer who only gruffly points to the location of the waiting ticket machine and then goes on sick leave for half a year. You can’t do anything about that. But that really is already the pessimist’s version. After all, you do not want to set up a dynamite depot.

Hello

my "simplified approval procedure" took almost exactly 6 months from submission to approval. Typical for NRW. After 5 months I called the caseworker. He told me that my application was sitting on the pile, but that he would take care of it now. Then it progressed in an incredible 3 weeks. The approval came through.
The law states that an approval procedure should be decided within 6 weeks. But with a non-binding regulation, the local officials couldn’t care less.

Steven

I am trying to simply correct the not entirely accurate statements of my predecessor ( ):
Freedom of procedure)
For the construction projects mentioned in §60, involvement of the approval authority is not required. For example, in Saxony-Anhalt, you are allowed to buy and set up a carport at a hardware store without informing anyone. Compliance with public-law regulations is then solely the responsibility of the builder.
Exemption from approval)
see Freedom of procedure)
Simplified procedure)
The application of the simplified procedure has nothing to do with the clarity of the examination effort, but with the conditions mentioned in §62. Even though more regulations have to be checked according to §63, the examination effort for an extravagant single-family house designed individually by a star architect (§62) is undoubtedly greater than the examination of the roofing of the outdoor terrace of the hospital café (§63).
Qualified development plan)
Although I am not satisfied with the explanations, since no one has requested explanations, I am saving the words for the case of a specific inquiry.

Why didn't you use a release procedure? Was that not considered?

The application of the simplified procedure has nothing to do with the clarity of the examination effort, but rather with the requirements mentioned in §62.

That’s also what I meant – so not related to the examination effort in the individual case, but to the type of construction project. The mentioned paragraph defines the suitable construction projects as follows: "The building supervisory authority examines for 1. residential buildings of building classes 1 to 3, 2. other buildings of building classes 1 and 2, [...] a) compliance with the regulations on the permissibility of structures according to §§ 29 to 38 of the Building Code, b) adherence to the requirements according to this law and the regulations issued pursuant to this law, and c) adherence to other public-law regulations."
This outlines the suitable building types and also the regulations to be checked for compliance. Conversely, it follows that building types assigned to other classes (for which additional regulations would also have to be demonstrated to have been observed) do not meet the requirements and in any case require a more complex procedure.

As far as I can see, the present case concerns a measure in an area without a development plan (= indication against the positive extreme of exemption), but in a residential building with few residential units (= indication against the negative extreme of the requirement for a "complex" approval procedure).

So I did not mean the clarity in the specific individual case, but that the legislator defines entire groups of projects which are typically suitable for simplified procedures (because of the relative simplicity of the examination).

For the present request, I see good chances not to have to immediately consult the very greatest oracles

Why didn’t you use an exemption procedure? Was that not a consideration?

I read

The house dates from around 1800.

as a fairly certain indication for "not a development plan area".