What do you think - I know - more space is always good. But it also costs.
Cheers to good house planning. Then it works without additional costs or enlargements at the expense of the budget.
whether we can manage with the size of the living room
We don’t know your expectations, nor how many people live in the house, or whether the dining table drawn by the planner actually corresponds to your furnishings. The drawn dining table is 120/90.. In the end, it is an almost square room, which you usually want to avoid when planning for the three zones because it is insufficiently furnishable. Your furniture is placed in front of the terrace doors, the drawn dining table would have to be rotated at 3.60 room width to be able to walk around the table when guests are present. Kitchen counters are usually made wider so that nothing falls down, or if the stove is planned there, then grease splashes onto the floor. TV/sofa is very cramped; for that, there is 6 sqm of floor space at the beginning of the room, which is left over and only serves as a hallway. The bedroom is relatively large, but you bump into the closet, which cannot even be a standard 3 meters.
I like controversial but also simple house plans, but then furnishable with standard dimensions without major compromises. I see many deficits here. When I see that in the bungalow the bathroom door is the narrow 78 cm width and the tub does not even have 80 cm of rough construction size space, but money is spent on a mega roof overhang that makes the house look like a mushroom, then I think of a botched standard house. Danwood?