End of a construction drama in sight

Created: 01/28/2022, 15:01

By: Sandra Sedlmaier

Unchanged ruins for years: the house on Dürrbergstraße in Assenhausen.

The administrative court did not find the strict procedure of the district office to be good.

© Andrea Jaksch

The Assenhausen construction drama seems to have a happy ending – at least for the builders.

The house on Dürrbergstrasse has been a construction site for almost four years.

Now the builders want to submit a new application for conversion - with the blessing of the administrative court and to the chagrin of the district office.

Assenhausen

– The old Berger know the house in question as the Café Rosengarten.

The pretty facade with the deep wooden balconies has disappeared in the course of the construction work, as have the old windows with the wooden shutters.

An open roof truss can currently be seen, the old charm of the house can only be guessed at.

Originally, this was the fear of the residents: that the renovation would destroy the charm of the house and with it the picturesque Dürrbergstrasse.

In 2019, when the first building application for the house was submitted, no one suspected that a very uncharming construction site would be there for several years.

The builders hadn't been particularly skilful.

They started the conversion without a building permit.

As one of the now three owners said, one of them wanted to move into the attic, already had a place in the kindergarten for the offspring and therefore rushed with the conversion.

The applications for merging two apartments and building a conservatory were rejected by the district office with reference to the lack of space and parking spaces.

After work was still being done on the construction site, the district office stopped construction and imposed a fine, in one case up to 80,000 euros.

Because the district office and the Berger building authority are of the opinion that the protection of existing buildings has expired as a result of the work on the roof structure. In the opinion of the authorities, the only possibility is a smaller new building at the same location in the interior due to the necessary space.

The lack of building permits, the cessation of construction and the penalty payment were now topics in the hearing before the administrative court.

The court, chaired by Judge Johann Oswald, immediately made it clear that it did not share the opinion of the district office.

The court assessed the case differently in terms of building planning and building regulations: Instead of a new construction, it saw the case as a change to the building.

The district office is always very strict when the roof is affected, Oswald said.

"It's about the relation to the building as a whole.

It is a large building, basement, ground floor and first floor remain.

The limit for new construction has not been exceeded.” A change in the Bavarian building regulations in the meantime was also a reason for this assessment.

Whereby,

For the district office it is “a blatant thing”, as construction lawyer Karolin Franzke said.

"Slice-by-slice construction work on the house, without permission - we have that again and again." That's why she wanted a clear line from the court.

"The identity of the building no longer exists here, so for us it's like a new construction."

The construction lawyer did not get a clear line because there was no verdict.

The plaintiff withdrew his claims.

And after the court had made it clear that it considered the threatened fines of 30,000 and 80,000 euros to be insufficiently justified, the district office gave in at this point.

So this point was also settled.

However, the judge also made it clear that the distances to the neighbors are important and that the roof should be given more consideration.

Several skylights were to be installed in the latter, but the client announced that they would not do so.

The builders will now submit an improved building application.

The question of parking spaces was completely ignored.

The Berger parking space statute provides for two per residential unit.

With the planned six residential units in the house, nine of the prescribed twelve are missing.