Indoor

In Germany, the interior area refers to the areas of the "built-up districts" in accordance with Section 34 of the Building Code (BauGB). This is a fixed term from building planning law in connection with the permissibility of building projects.

In the interior, i.e. within the built-up districts, building may generally be carried out if there are no significant reasons against it.

In contrast to the indoor area, the outdoor area is the sum of all areas that are neither over-planned by a qualified development plan, nor allocated to the districts built on in connection with them, and which is basically to be kept free from development. The demarcation of the built-up districts from the undeveloped outside area results from the actual local situation. Since this is often controversial in practice, Section 34 (4) BauGB authorizes the municipalities to set the boundaries of the interior area in a statute.

District

A building project is permitted within the built-up districts, i.e. the inner area, if it fits in with the nature and extent of the structural use, the construction method and the property area to be built over, and the development is secured . The appearance of the site must not be impaired ( Section 34 (1) BauGB ).

A district within the meaning of the Building Code is "every building complex in the area of a municipality that has a certain weight according to the number of existing buildings and is an expression of an organic settlement structure".

Development context

In public building law, a development context is defined as an actually existing, consecutive, contiguous development that gives the impression of unity despite any existing vacant lots. In this context, the decisive factor is to what extent the successive development, despite any undeveloped areas, gives the impression of cohesion and togetherness according to the traffic perception and the area intended for development itself still belongs to this context.

Smaller undeveloped areas that do not interrupt the development context and therefore belong to it themselves are the so-called vacant lots . How large such a vacant lot can be without interrupting the development context depends solely on the local conditions, such as B. on the urban peculiarities of the respective district. As a rule, there is only a vacant lot if the area can only accommodate one or only a few of the projects that exist in its vicinity. For example, there would only be a vacant lot if the area is characterized by spacious properties with a garden and only a corresponding project would fit the undeveloped area. On the other hand, a vacant lot can no longer be assumed if an area is no longer shaped in any way by the existing buildings due to its size, but rather is capable of an orderly urban development and planning independent of the surroundings.

Demarcation between indoor and outdoor areas

The development context generally ends with the last existing development. The adjacent areas, which are independent in the urban planning sense, belong to the outside area . The boundaries of the property or representations of the land use plan are irrelevant. From this it follows that the boundary between inside and outside cannot be drawn schematically, for example as a center line forming the average of the building protruding “outside” or as a line in front of the building protruding furthest into the outside area. Such rounding-off demarcations are reserved for the statute procedure according to § 34 Para. 4 No. 3 BauGB . Since the outskirts are often characterized by inconsistent development, the actual boundary between the inside and outside areas is often angled and irregular. However, especially in rural places, areas between the main building and the outside area are still widespread through ancillary facilities or in some other way used as an accessory to building, which can be designed differently depending on the type of main use (terraces, garden houses, sheds, small animal stalls, play areas etc.) This area, which is characterized by ancillary facilities, usually belongs to the building context and thus to the interior. With the demarcation between indoor and outdoor areas, it is also conceivable that the existing buildings on a property do not include the entire property in the inner area, but rather the inner area boundary runs in the middle of the property. In such a case, the development context has been completed, although the property extends more or less far beyond this limit. In such a case, even if it is built on, the property is not to be allocated to the interior in its full extent. In individual cases, undeveloped areas adjacent to the last built-up plot of land can still be assigned to the interior, especially if they are clearly separated from the open landscape by special topographical features or roads and do not themselves exceed the size of a vacant lot.

Closer surroundings

The immediate vicinity is the area on which a building project can affect land law and through which the project property is shaped or influenced by land law. The assessment of the legal planning permissibility of projects in the interior is based on the nature of the surrounding area resulting from the existing development. This means that everything in the building can be seen that is actually available in the vicinity. A restriction to what is desirable or even justifiable from the existing development in terms of urban planning may not be made in this respect. An exception applies only to those close construction projects against which the building authority is actively taking action and thus expressing that it will not tolerate this actual development, i.e. "the behavior of the responsible authorities is sufficiently clear that their removal is foreseeable". On the other hand, according to § 35 Paragraph 1 No. 1 BauGB, privileged projects are also to be included in the existing development in the outdoor area .

Insertion criteria

"To fit in" means that a building project adheres to a framework that can be derived from the immediate surroundings with regard to the type and extent of structural use , the building area that can be built over and the construction method . This list is final. The insertion criteria must be checked independently of one another. If a project z. B. according to its type, when checking whether it also fits in according to its size, it no longer depends on its type, for example on the size of other structures of the same type in the immediate vicinity is. In this respect, there are no species-specific different criteria for the extent of use or the area that is to be built over.

Test steps

The individual test steps are:

A frame must be determined for each of the 4 admissibility criteria from the relevant surrounding development.
If a project stays within the framework in every respect, it usually fits in, unless it is inconsiderate.
If a project exceeds the framework, it can still fit in if it does not trigger any tensions under land law or increases existing tensions that can only be dealt with through land-use planning.

A project does not fit into the peculiarity of the immediate surroundings if it exceeds the framework that can be derived from the surroundings and is suitable to create or increase considerable tensions that need to be dealt with under land law. Such a case exists if the project worsens, disturbs or pollutes the existing situation in a manner relevant to building planning law. If it causes unrest in this sense, the prerequisites for its approval can only be created with the use of land-use planning . There is also a need for planning if the project has a more than minor impact on the interests of third parties that are worthy of protection.

If a qualified development plan has been drawn up ( “planned interior area” ), the admissibility is based on the stipulations of this development plan. If there is a development plan, but it does not qualify in accordance with Section 30 (1) BauGB, the permissibility of the project is regulated in the interior with regard to the criteria not regulated in the development plan according to the insertion requirement .

In addition to the requirement to insert, the precondition for admissibility is that

the development is secured,
the requirements for healthy living and working conditions are met and
the site is not impaired.

Development

In individual cases, the existing development , especially the path-wise development, can set limits to the permissibility of projects in the interior area. This can be the case in particular if the project creates a need for traffic that can no longer be met by the existing public access facilities, but requires structural expansion or supplementary measures. The creation of a public access road generally requires a development plan ( Section 125 (1) BauGB ). In otherwise simple cases, the construction and dedication of the necessary public access road can also be secured by a corresponding contract. The planned development of a project can also be inconsiderate with regard to its location or its scope in relation to the neighboring development and thus lead to the inadmissibility of the project.

Healthy living and working conditions

With regard to the basic building potential of indoor plots, the prohibition of the emergence of unhealthy living and working conditions is to be assessed as the outermost limit of permissibility. It is limited in its application to the defense against urban development deficiencies and cannot be compared to the pre-emptive immission control requirement for land use planning. In this respect, the standards to be applied to the project to be assessed cannot be found in the rules for new planning (e.g. DIN 18005). According to the Federal Court of Justice, the threshold up to which a project still meets the general requirements for healthy living and working conditions is not too far from the police risk.

Avoiding the impairment of the townscape

The requirement to avoid impairing the appearance of the townscape is of an urban nature and must therefore be distinguished from the design law of the state building regulations. The yardstick is the appearance of the place, i.e. the appearance of a larger area of a municipality, solely from an urban planning point of view. The decisive factor is whether the project fits into the wider environment, although the design of the building itself is not relevant. When it comes to impairing the appearance of the place, it is not important, as is the case with the insertion requirement, that individual features of the existing buildings conform, but rather whether an overall image, which can be characterized by different elements, is disturbed. In this respect, a site that is worthy of protection must first be available. In order to be worthy of protection and to be able to restrict the building (design) freedom of the owner, the site must have a certain value for the general public. In any case, this would not apply to a site that does not have any typical regional features. Not every townscape is worthy of protection just because it is characterized by a certain uniformity or similarity of the development or individual elements of the development. Rather, it must have a special character, a certain peculiarity, which gives the place or district a character that stands out from the usual. The upper limit of the impairment is the disfigurement (grossly inappropriate for the townscape in terms of urban development and burdensome for an observer who is open to such impressions). However, the protection of the site is usually not of such weight that it can keep a building site completely clear indoors.

If a project is permitted under the Building Code, the applicant is entitled to a building permit ( building law ) if building law (the respective state building code and other laws) is complied with. To put it simply, there is usually a right to building permission indoors if there are no significant reasons against it, while outdoors it is exactly the other way around.

Indoor Bylaws

In connection with built-up districts can be determined by the municipality through statutes. The BauGB distinguishes three types of statutes:

The clarification statute (§ 34 Paragraph 4 No. 1)
The development statutes (Section 34, Paragraph 4, No. 2)
The inclusion or supplementary statutes (Section 34 Paragraph 4 No. 3)

The most common application in practice is the inclusion or supplementary statute according to Section 34 Paragraph 4 No. 3 BauGB.

literature

Ronald Kunze (2007): Keyword “Outside Area” in “Building Regulations in Pictures”. WEKA-Media, Kissing
Ronald Kunze, Hartmut Welters (ed.): BauGB Innovations 2007 . Comment on the innovations and legal text BauGB 2007 including BauNVO. WEKAMEDIA, Kissing 2007
Ronald Kunze, Hartmut Welters (ed.): The practical handbook of building land use planning . Loose-leaf collection with ongoing updates. WEKAMEDIA, Kissing 2000–2011

Individual evidence

↑ BVerwG : judgment of November 6, 1968, file number IV C 31.66 .
↑ Stephan Mitschang / Olaf Reidt in: Battis / Krautzberger / Löhr, Building Code, 14th edition 2019, § 34 Rn. 14th
↑ BVerwG: judgment of May 29, 1981, file number 4 C 34.78 , BVerwGE 62, 250
↑ Stephan Mitschang / Olaf Reidt in: Battis / Krautzberger / Löhr, Building Code, 14th edition 2019, § 34 Rn. 9.
↑ Stephan Mitschang / Olaf Reidt in: Battis / Krautzberger / Löhr, Building Code, 14th edition 2019, § 34 Rn. 6th
↑ BVerwG: Decision of December 16, 2008, file number 4 B 68.08 , ZfBR 2009, 376, beck-online.
↑ BVerwG: Decision of April 2, 2007, file number 4 B 7.07 , ZfBR 2007, 480, beck-online.
↑ Stephan Mitschang / Olaf Reidt in: Battis / Krautzberger / Löhr, Building Code, 14th edition 2019, § 34 Rn. 25th
^ OVG Magdeburg : Decision of February 3, 2015, file number 2 M 152/14 , NVwZ-RR 2015, 687, beck-online.
↑ BVerwG: Decision of May 13, 2014, file number 4 B 38/13 , NVwZ 2014, 1246, beck-online.

[1] BVerwG : judgment of November 6, 1968, file number IV C 31.66 .

[2] Stephan Mitschang / Olaf Reidt in: Battis / Krautzberger / Löhr, Building Code, 14th edition 2019, § 34 Rn. 14th

[3] BVerwG: judgment of May 29, 1981, file number 4 C 34.78 , BVerwGE 62, 250

[4] Stephan Mitschang / Olaf Reidt in: Battis / Krautzberger / Löhr, Building Code, 14th edition 2019, § 34 Rn. 9.

[5] Stephan Mitschang / Olaf Reidt in: Battis / Krautzberger / Löhr, Building Code, 14th edition 2019, § 34 Rn. 6th

[6] BVerwG: Decision of December 16, 2008, file number 4 B 68.08 , ZfBR 2009, 376, beck-online.

[7] BVerwG: Decision of April 2, 2007, file number 4 B 7.07 , ZfBR 2007, 480, beck-online.

[8] Stephan Mitschang / Olaf Reidt in: Battis / Krautzberger / Löhr, Building Code, 14th edition 2019, § 34 Rn. 25th

[9] OVG Magdeburg : Decision of February 3, 2015, file number 2 M 152/14 , NVwZ-RR 2015, 687, beck-online.

[10] BVerwG: Decision of May 13, 2014, file number 4 B 38/13 , NVwZ 2014, 1246, beck-online.