The six assessment criteria for buildings
| No. | Criterion | Weighting in the points method |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Requirements for integration into the surroundings | up to 6 points |
| 2 | Number of functional areas | up to 9 points |
| 3 | Design requirements | up to 9 points |
| 4 | Structural requirements | up to 6 points |
| 5 | Building services | up to 6 points |
| 6 | Fit-out | up to 6 points |
The highest attainable score is therefore 42, and fee zone V begins at 35 points. The boundaries of the other zones are set out in the ordinance text and should be read there.
Two criteria weigh half as much again as the others: the number of functional areas and the design requirements. Together they carry 18 of the 42 possible points, that is more than four tenths. That sets the order in which a zone should be argued.
That matters for argument. A building with many distinct uses under one roof, or with raised design ambition, reaches a higher zone more readily than one with demanding services or structure.
Interiors have their own catalogue of criteria, covering among other things the number of functional areas and the requirements for lighting design. It is not identical with the one for buildings, and the weighting differs too.
The points method applies only in cases of doubt
This is the most misunderstood point on the subject. Numerous treatments present the points method as the way zones are determined. The ordinance text says otherwise.
The method applies only where criteria from several fee zones are applicable to a building and doubt therefore arises as to which zone it belongs in. The doubt is thus the precondition of the method rather than its outcome.
In the normal case, allocation therefore proceeds directly: from the criteria and their description within the zones, and from the object list. Only where that assessment yields no clear result is the calculation performed.
In practice this implies an order to be observed in argument. It begins with the text of the ordinance and ends with the arithmetic, not the other way round.
- Map the criteria onto the zone descriptions and check whether a consistent picture emerges.
- Draw on the object list to support or question the classification.
- Only where doubt remains, determine the assessment points and derive the zone from them.
Calculating immediately forfeits the first argument and invites a discussion about individual point allocations. Every single point then becomes negotiable, although the allocation may not have been doubtful at all.
The object list is to be taken into account, not followed
Annex 10 contains object lists allocating typical buildings and interiors to zones. The ordinance provides that these lists are to be taken into account in allocation.
The wording is deliberate and consequential in practice. The lists are an aid to interpretation, not a binding catalogue. They also allocate objects expressly only as a rule.
Two consequences follow, and both widen the room for allocation. They act in opposite directions but rest on the same principle.
| Case | Consequence |
|---|---|
| A listed object may be classified differently | where the specific assessment of the criteria produces another picture; a dwelling with exceptional design requirements is not fixed to its default zone |
| An unlisted object is not without a zone | it is classified from the criteria, drawing where appropriate on comparable listed objects |
The specific assessment of the criteria therefore takes precedence over mere listing in the catalogue. Citing the list alone does not yet justify an allocation.
Why the zone is underestimated
Zone allocation acts on the entire fee, and it acts before every other quantity. It is nonetheless frequently settled in passing, for three reasons.
| Reason | What follows |
|---|---|
| It looks like a formality | an entry in the contract, a number between I and V; its effect on the fee band is nonetheless substantial |
| It is carried over from habit | practices with recurring task types allocate new projects reflexively to the accustomed zone without examining the criteria |
| It is not justified | a contract showing only the zone without a derivation is hard to defend in a dispute; with the assessment of the six criteria alongside it, it is readily defensible |
A simple recommendation follows: record the zone allocation with an assessment of the criteria, even where no doubt arises and the points method is not required. It takes a few minutes.
The zone in existing buildings
For conversions and modernisations the zone must be determined separately, namely the zone to which the project belongs applying the assessment criteria by analogy. The zone of the existing building is irrelevant to that.
That is not a formality but an assessment in its own right. Projects in existing buildings typically show higher requirements on several criteria than comparable new builds: on integration into the surroundings, on structural requirements and frequently on fit-out.
The zone acts before the conversion supplement. Both are independent instruments, and neither replaces the other. The system is covered in the article on the conversion supplement.
What a wrong allocation risks
An incorrect zone allocation acts in both directions and has consequences beyond the difference itself. The two directions are not equally correctable.
| Direction of the error | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Too high an allocation | an excessive fee the client may reclaim |
| Too low an allocation | an insufficient fee whose later correction may founder on the agreement made |
The second direction is the more common, since a zone is chosen downwards in case of doubt. It is also the harder of the two to correct.
Since binding price law fell away, the position has not become simpler but different: since the level is freely negotiable, the agreement governs, and the zone now serves only to derive it. A properly recorded allocation is therefore above all an argument in negotiation and a safeguard in the final account.
Related articles
This article reflects the position of the rules and case law at the date of checking and serves professional orientation. It does not constitute legal advice and does not replace assessment of the individual case.