ᐅ Living area approximately 8 m² smaller in the permit drawings compared to the design (general contractor)
Created on: 16 Apr 2025 11:23
I
ITSM2025
Hi everyone,
Unfortunately, I thought I was smarter than everyone else here in the forum (I have been a quiet reader for a while) and believed I could rely on the general contractor’s planning. Now, right from the start, things are becoming "interesting." I’m not sure whether my frustration is justified or if this is just standard practice in the construction industry. Here’s the situation:
Based on the preliminary design from the general contractor, we awarded the contract (signed the agreement) with the expectation that the room sizes would match the preliminary design. The house is planned as a KfW 40 energy-efficient building with sand-lime brick, insulation, and brick veneer. This was included in the offer along with additional requests, and the design was adjusted accordingly, if necessary. So, it’s not like the general contractor was unaware of our KfW 40 project. Now we have received the building permit drawings showing roughly 8 m² (86 sq ft) less living space due to suddenly thicker walls, both external and internal. The exterior walls were increased from 42.5 cm (17 inches) to 49 cm (19 inches) thickness. And this was done inward, not outward. In other words, each side has lost 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior living space. Calculated in euros, that’s about €22,000 less living area based on the price per square meter. Or, in other words: the general contractor now has to buy fewer sand-lime bricks and build with less material, with less plastering, tiling, screed, underfloor heating, pipes, etc. However, there was no price reduction.
Is this common practice? Should one accept something like this?
Additionally, the attic floor has lost 13 cm (5 inches) in width and 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior height due to the knee wall being shifted further inward. We had planned to convert this space later, which now seems hardly worthwhile. The general contractor knew about this in advance and even planned wiring and such in the attic/roof space.
How do you assess this situation, and how would you proceed?
Thank you very much in advance!
Unfortunately, I thought I was smarter than everyone else here in the forum (I have been a quiet reader for a while) and believed I could rely on the general contractor’s planning. Now, right from the start, things are becoming "interesting." I’m not sure whether my frustration is justified or if this is just standard practice in the construction industry. Here’s the situation:
Based on the preliminary design from the general contractor, we awarded the contract (signed the agreement) with the expectation that the room sizes would match the preliminary design. The house is planned as a KfW 40 energy-efficient building with sand-lime brick, insulation, and brick veneer. This was included in the offer along with additional requests, and the design was adjusted accordingly, if necessary. So, it’s not like the general contractor was unaware of our KfW 40 project. Now we have received the building permit drawings showing roughly 8 m² (86 sq ft) less living space due to suddenly thicker walls, both external and internal. The exterior walls were increased from 42.5 cm (17 inches) to 49 cm (19 inches) thickness. And this was done inward, not outward. In other words, each side has lost 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior living space. Calculated in euros, that’s about €22,000 less living area based on the price per square meter. Or, in other words: the general contractor now has to buy fewer sand-lime bricks and build with less material, with less plastering, tiling, screed, underfloor heating, pipes, etc. However, there was no price reduction.
Is this common practice? Should one accept something like this?
Additionally, the attic floor has lost 13 cm (5 inches) in width and 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior height due to the knee wall being shifted further inward. We had planned to convert this space later, which now seems hardly worthwhile. The general contractor knew about this in advance and even planned wiring and such in the attic/roof space.
How do you assess this situation, and how would you proceed?
Thank you very much in advance!
G
Gerddieter17 Apr 2025 12:20No, the plans are the basis of the contract. The inconsistency of the dimensions only makes it worse for the contractor, not the consumer.
And seriously, these are not additional costs for the contractor.
8 sqm (86 sq ft) more foundation slab – 500
8 sqm (86 sq ft) more screed – 200
Heating – he doesn’t add a single loop more because each room is a few centimeters wider.
Parquet flooring – you can offer to take this on yourself.
And seriously, these are not additional costs for the contractor.
8 sqm (86 sq ft) more foundation slab – 500
8 sqm (86 sq ft) more screed – 200
Heating – he doesn’t add a single loop more because each room is a few centimeters wider.
Parquet flooring – you can offer to take this on yourself.
G
Gerddieter17 Apr 2025 12:26One more thing – in case of external financing.
The bank also calculated the value based on the size of the house – it’s questionable how they would handle a sudden loss in value...
The bank also calculated the value based on the size of the house – it’s questionable how they would handle a sudden loss in value...
wiltshire schrieb:
That’s exactly the point. Were these sketches created specifically for YOU, or are they sample sketches generally used when deciding on the house type or floor plan? In connection with the contract clause you quoted, "taking precedence over drawings," this is crucial to determine whether you have a claim or not.
It is certainly not my intention to judge you in any way. You won’t find a single word from me doing so—this can be verified.
I don’t want to encourage you to walk headfirst into a wall out of anger and frustration. That would be unfair. Some things are easy to say when you’re not bearing any risk yourself. But the situation between you and your building partner is tense in a way that the solution will largely determine whether your build goes smoothly and you end up satisfied.
If it’s clear that the colorful drawings you refer to were created individually for you and thus are a fundamental part of your consultation, you have a chance to achieve something or even to withdraw from the contract. If you don’t know, you can find out. If these images were not created specifically for you, communication may have been poor, but disputing it would cause more harm than good. The difference is subtle but important.
It looks like this: the question is whether approval was required for the change in living area shown in the "colorful drawings." This determines whether there is an actual "reduction of living space," or whether the comparison between the living area shown in the colorful drawings and the contractual drawings is even relevant. Thank you for your contribution!
My wife and I initially created our own sketch based on our ideas for the layout and room sizes, before searching for the right building partner. It was a very basic draft made on the computer. With this, we approached various general contractors (GCs), who then converted it into a colorful drawing and made some minor adjustments together with us. So, this is a custom design created by us, not taken from any catalog, internet source, or anywhere else. The GC is a company based locally, building houses, administrative buildings, fire stations, and so on in the region only. They do not offer customers a catalog with sample floor plans.
Don’t get discouraged—you chose a general contractor based on that square meter (square foot) measurement and the floor plans.
You may have even rejected two others specifically because of this layout and the square meters, and now you’re supposed to just accept this? No, don’t do that—address it with him. Based on the information we have, you are in the right.
And to @11ant, yes, he was in the construction industry but wasn’t really successful. So just ignore what he says.
You may have even rejected two others specifically because of this layout and the square meters, and now you’re supposed to just accept this? No, don’t do that—address it with him. Based on the information we have, you are in the right.
And to @11ant, yes, he was in the construction industry but wasn’t really successful. So just ignore what he says.
tomtom79 schrieb:
And to @11ant, yes, he worked in the construction industry but was not really successful. So ignore what he says. Please do not spread defamatory statements here! I was appointed as a restructuring manager for an aluminum window factory too late. Afterwards, I managed a window retailer that was sold. My successor in the organization failed to register properly and, during the COVID-19 pandemic, led the company into bankruptcy. Now, I am inaccurately listed as the last CEO in the commercial register. That is unpleasant—but it does not give you a free pass to add slanderous remarks!
I have been running a consulting firm with satisfied clients since 1992; feel free to try to match that first.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
M
MachsSelbst17 Apr 2025 14:15Gerddieter schrieb:
No, the plans form the basis of the contract. The inconsistency of the measurements only makes it worse for the builder, not for the consumer.
And honestly, these are not additional costs for the builder.
8 sqm (86 sq ft) more concrete slab – 500
8 sqm (86 sq ft) more screed – 200
Heating – he won’t add a single additional loop because every room is a few centimeters wider.
Parquet flooring: you could offer to take that on. He’ll adjust that anyway, along with the costs for the thicker blocks, right?
After all, it’s only the concrete slab and the foundation that increase.
The screed, heating, etc. remain identical to what was sold with the thinner walls.
Similar topics