Could you please publish the whole rule for courtyards, including annexes? You can download it in pdf format: Rule HD-91 of the Regional Government of Valencia. Given the significant incline that appears on plots 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, how would the regulations be applied as regards the height of projections over the pavement on sloped land? The minimum height of 3.2m above the pavement should be complied with completely. If plots 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are grouped together in a single building, should the maximum height of the cornice at the three plots be maintained independently, or should they be (as regards the maximum) considered a single plot? They can be deemed a single plot; the maximum height of the cornice of 12.5m should not be exceeded. Regarding the southwest side of plot 3.3 (adjoining the existing wall), could it be considered a party wall and therefore blind? Yes. The side between the vertices 88 and 89 on plot 3.3 has a width of 17.5m, but according to planning bylaws the buildable depth must be a maximum of 16m. Which should be adopted? In this specific case, as you note, it is somewhat higher and is defined by the building footprint. The figure that appears in the information table should be that adhered to. Regarding the proportion between building types, is it shared in a general sense between the three plots or can it be applied to each one of them? As we have stated previously, plots 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 can be dealt with as a single plot. In the photographs that you attach, it is noticeable that some buildings adjoining plot 2.2 (plots 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1) have an elevation that is higher than the attic. Does this mean that a proposal can be submitted with attics being ground floor plus four stories? Yes. A proposal can be submitted with ground floor plus an attic, set back three metres from the building façade line, which (in the case of a dwelling being connected to the dwelling of a story below) will be gauged with reference to the calculation of buildable potential. Which is the rule for courtyards? Rule HD-91 of the Regional Government of Valencia: (click here) The southwest boundary of plot 3.3 is an existing wall. Does it border another property or a public right of way? The reason for the question is to know if it is a party wall or a façade. It is a party wall with older private buildings. Is it necessary to create storage rooms like in preceding affordable homes? Yes, it creating storage rooms would be fitting. Can storage rooms have flat roofs? If so, at what depth at the façade? An attic can be created, set back three metres from the façade line for the storage room and facilities of the building or dwelling, if it is attached to the floor below. Attics are not counted in buildable potential calculations if they are designated for use as storage rooms or facilities, though they are when their use is residential. Is it obligatory to create storage rooms in the car park basement? Storage rooms can be created in the basement, the ground floor or in the attic. What are the boundaries of the complete site to which an architectural solution has to be found? They are indicated in the information: plots 2.2, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. Is the side between vertexes 88 and 89 on plot 3.3 a party wall? Yes, with some private buildings. Would it be possible to have available the z coordinate of the vertexes of plots 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, given that a level difference is notable in the photographs? This data will be posted on the website as son as possible. In the meantime, the photographs give quite a clear idea of the mentioned level difference. Is the garden area that takes in the building in a U form a public open space or is it private? Could it therefore be made use of by creating a car park beneath? It is a public open space that may not feature a construction beneath. In the 98-dwelling competition in Utiel, the use of the ground floor is not specified. Observing the adjoining buildings and affordable home projects, it is notable that the ground floors are designated to be business premises. Making a rough estimation of the surface areas, it appears that a ground floor is required to comply with the square meterage requested. The entire buildable potential included on the ground floor must be designated to dwellings. Is it necessary to have business premises on the ground floor, or does it have to be made use of by residential use? Entirely for residential use. On plots 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, can a joint proposal be made without taking into account individual boundaries (that could have common vertical communication components), homes included on two plots, etc.? Can the container volumes of the three plots be modified (carrying out of a detailed study)? A common proposal is perfectly viable; all that would be required would be a simple plot grouping proceeding in which the boundaries between them would disappear. The new development potential would be the collective sum of that of the original plots. With regard to the modification of the container volumes of the three plots, we are not sure if we understand the question, given that the occupation of the plots is 100%. From the plans in the documentation section the plot topography does not emerge. Would it be possible to obtain a site survey? The topographic survey is in preparation, but will not be available until the end of September. Nonetheless, photographs have been added, as to the present state of the plots, on the web site through which the bidders can gain a very clear idea. Together, plots 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 form a 'U'. Does the separation between these plots have to be obligatorily a joint structure (working on a project as if it were three blocks) or, on the other hand, can the joint structures be located on other sites? Question already answered. They can be considered a single plot. Would there be an opportunity to work on a site on a project with more than four stories, taking away stories in another (provided that the building potential is not increased)? Or, does the four-story limit have to be respected throughout the site? Increasing the number of stories requires an awkward modification procedure to the local plan in which other bodies and administrations, outside the competition organiser, are involved. The bidder should consider the fact that its chances of success will diminish in the same way that the difficulties to gain immediate realisation of the project increase. Is the boundary marked on each plot one that must be adhered to like a road boundary and can a building with right of entry and exit within the marked boundary be considered? Adjusting the plot construction in relation to the boundary could imply loss of building potential. The bidder must carefully weigh up the fact that for each 100m² of unused building potential a family will lose the opportunity to access to a home, and should gauge if the proposal quality compensates for this. Could the rules and regulations HG-91 (that consider courtyards), as well as a short explanation of what is understood by open and interior courtyards, be posted on the website? We are awaiting receipt of this information, which we will probably not have available until September. However, the panel will not consider problematic those 'good' courtyards that do not satisfy the minimum dimensions, in the same sense that it will not value squalid courtyards that do not comply with them. Do the ground floors have to be solely homes, or does a part of them have to include business premises, and in what percentage? The entire ground floor must be occupied by homes. Must parking spaces be located in the basement? How many levels are anticipated for the basement? May parking spaces be located on the ground floor? The ideal outcome would be to avoid losing building potential, as a result locating the garages on the ground floor, placing them on one or two levels below ground.