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!
11ant schrieb:
As a rule, it is much more critical to exceed the previously planned exterior dimensions. I can’t recall a single case where going 6cm (2.4 inches) outward has limited a house construction. If you have to plan that precisely, the designer usually pays closer attention anyway. To me, this sounds more like someone looking for an excuse to keep the cost down.
K a t j a schrieb:
That’s nonsense. If KfW 40 standards were clearly communicated, the original poster (OP) is, in my opinion, absolutely right. What if the furniture was already chosen to fit? Of course, what matters is what’s stated in the contract. What exactly are you buying? If the contract specifies a house with x square meters of living space, the general contractor cannot just reduce that. Thank you for your input. I’m copying a short excerpt from one of my previous posts. I just checked again. There is nothing more specific apart from the colored sketches.
“The contract only mentions one potential reference: ‘Ground floor, in the size shown on the drawings, with the equipment according to the building specification,’ the same applies to the upper floor. As I said, at that time, only the colored sketches were available. The more detailed drawing only came after commissioning the architectural service. Also, further back in the building scope description, it states: ‘The dimensions included in the building drawings and building specification are approximate values. In case of differences between the building plans and the building specification, the building specification is decisive; in case of differences in dimension specifications, the execution plans are authoritative.’
There is nothing else relevant here.”
W
wiltshire16 Apr 2025 19:08The colorful drawing looks like it came from a catalog. That was also the case for our previous row house. A sample drawing in a brochure explained the floor plan in a very simple standard.
It is understandable to me that this sample drawing was not corrected to reflect your desire to build to a higher energy standard. A note about the increased wall volume would certainly have been nice. Have you discussed the different wall constructions related to the corresponding energy classes?
Neither. It’s not just about “complaining” or “keeping quiet.” You can simply ask and have them explain how the difference comes about. From the information provided, I don’t see any indication that someone is trying to take advantage of you.
That’s useful information and explains the “growth of the masonry volume inward.”
This price-per-square-meter calculation can really become absurd. I recognize its value as a rough estimate for preliminary budgeting, but I don’t support using it as a basis for settling differences related to a higher construction standard. However, if we consider it briefly, I can see that you are being offered a price per square meter under €3,000. That seems reasonable.
By the way, I find it unusual to talk about “blame” and “victim” before clarifying the facts. That only stirs things up and adds no value.
It is understandable to me that this sample drawing was not corrected to reflect your desire to build to a higher energy standard. A note about the increased wall volume would certainly have been nice. Have you discussed the different wall constructions related to the corresponding energy classes?
ITSM2025 schrieb:
So what I actually wanted to get at here: Should I open a can of worms with the general contractor (GC) now, or is this just “how it is,” and I have to live with it?
Neither. It’s not just about “complaining” or “keeping quiet.” You can simply ask and have them explain how the difference comes about. From the information provided, I don’t see any indication that someone is trying to take advantage of you.
11ant schrieb:
By the way, your GC plans precisely according to the octameter grid, so there’s no cutting bricks or sloppy workmanship. Many builders will envy you for that—at least those who go to a GC without protection.
That’s useful information and explains the “growth of the masonry volume inward.”
ITSM2025 schrieb:
Calculated in euros, that’s about €22,000 less living space if we go by price per m² (price per sq ft).
This price-per-square-meter calculation can really become absurd. I recognize its value as a rough estimate for preliminary budgeting, but I don’t support using it as a basis for settling differences related to a higher construction standard. However, if we consider it briefly, I can see that you are being offered a price per square meter under €3,000. That seems reasonable.
By the way, I find it unusual to talk about “blame” and “victim” before clarifying the facts. That only stirs things up and adds no value.
ITSM2025 schrieb:
"The contract mentions this only once: 'Ground floor, sized as shown in the drawings, finished according to the construction specifications,' and the same for the attic. As I said, at that time we only had the colored drawings. The detailed drawings were only available after the architectural services were commissioned."Well, that’s quite vague. You can’t actually get it exactly as shown in the drawings, because then the energy efficiency standards (KfW values) wouldn’t be met. In my opinion, that already counts as poor advice. I’m no legal expert, but if you take a strict view, the contract might be void due to mistake or impossibility. If you want to fix it, the party responsible for the problem can’t do so at your expense. But maybe I’m wrong.In my view, any extension always has to be outward anyway, simply because otherwise all other dimensions wouldn’t fit anymore — like stair riser heights, door widths, distances between walls, or even cupboard sizes.
Ultimately, the main question is: do you want to start disputing with your general contractor before construction even begins? So far, nothing has happened. I’d just go and say the interior must not get smaller, and ask him to correct it. Let’s see what he says.
K a t j a schrieb:
Well, it’s quite vague. You can’t get it exactly as shown in the drawing because then the KfW requirements wouldn’t be met. In my view, that’s already a case of poor advice. I’m no legal expert, but strictly speaking, the contract is probably void due to error or impossibility. If you try to fix it, the party responsible for the problem can’t do so to your detriment. But maybe I’m mistaken.
In my opinion, any extension must always be made outward, simply because otherwise all the other dimensions won’t fit anymore—like stair rise, door widths, distances between walls, or even cupboard sizes.
Ultimately, the main question is whether you want to start disputing with your general contractor before construction even begins. So far, nothing has happened. I would just say that the interior of the house must not become smaller and ask them to correct it. Let’s see what they say then. Thank you for your input.
That’s probably how I will have to proceed. Even if it means significant additional costs, I would ask them to compensate by raising the gable and knee wall by 6.5 cm (2.6 inches). With the floor plan and surface area, that would work out. For me, it’s important because we signed the contract at the agreed price based on the floor plan. We are also paying the additional 14,000 € for KfW 40 certification to outfit the house accordingly.
I will report back in about a week with the outcome. I doubt there will be a good agreement, but we’ll see.
Thanks again to everyone, and have a nice evening.
Oh, by the way, the floor plan/layout/room positioning does not need to be discussed further. We are satisfied with it and will build it exactly like my parents’ house.
ITSM2025 schrieb:
The contract only mentions what this could involve, once. It does not need to be mentioned multiple times in the contract. If you take it literally, you go through every sentence in a contract and consider what it means. If it’s not clear, you ask for clarification. If everything is clear, you sign.
I’m certainly not blaming you, because we didn’t review every sentence back then either.
But you have to admit objectively that the clause
ITSM2025 schrieb:
"Ground floor, sized as shown in the drawings, with the features as described in the construction specification," the same applies for the upper floor. As mentioned, at that time we only had the colored drawings. The more detailed drawings only appeared after commissioning the architectural services. Furthermore, further down in the construction specification it states: "The measurements contained in the construction drawings and specification are approximate values. In case of discrepancies between the construction plans and the specification, the specification prevails; in case of discrepancies in the dimensions, the execution plans are authoritative." says exactly what I said, and it’s hard to believe otherwise.
However, the clause in the construction specification relating to wall thicknesses and energy standards is actually missing now.
Similar topics