Flat roof - facade protection

Originally, we had agreed on a pitched roof with the general contractor/architect. In the end, it became a flat roof. The general contractor/architect then recommended a "canopy" as facade protection, which is also clearly evident from the plans attached to the general contractor contract (see attachment: excerpt of the cross-sectional plan according to the attachment to the general contractor contract). In writing, nothing is really recorded regarding the roof.

According to the attached cross-sectional plan, the canopy was supposed to protrude 30 cm. Yesterday, the metal cladding was installed. From the 30 cm according to the plan, it is now only 5-6 cm. Of course, I immediately complained about this. The general contractor/architect just said that no "canopy" was agreed upon. What relevance do the plans have then? Can the general contractor/architect simply do whatever he wants?

Thank you again!

The contract must specify - in writing - which construction services are to be provided in what form and quality. Plan drawings are more of a supplement or a representation of an execution option, the implementation of which must be agreed upon in writing. Often, a hierarchy is agreed upon in the contract that regulates the order/priority in which all documents (plans, written agreements, standards, etc.) come into effect. This then reads roughly: "In case of dispute or contradictions, the following documents shall apply in the following order: 1. Construction description 2. Technical contractual conditions 3. Plan drawings..." Is there such a formulation in your contract? It might help if "Plan drawings" were at the very top.

That is often heard, that the agreed services are simply not provided. In this described case, that is clearly so. There is really the feeling that they can do whatever they want. I just find that unbelievable.

I also find it audacious what the architect has done here. Just changing from a gable roof to a flat roof would have driven me up the wall. Then reducing the façade protection from 30 cm to 6 cm, I also find that quite severe.

I wouldn't put up with that. He has to provide reasons why the gable roof was changed to a flat roof. The issue with the porch is a classic construction botch. That's why a lawyer is necessary here.

In the sketch, this is not clearly discernible. At this point, the GU/architect completely failed. Whether this can now be remedied is difficult to assess.