Land and floor plan design with access in the southeast

Instead of the cabinet, I would install a row of tall kitchen units and widen the island. The fireplace on the exterior wall.

Take a look at the blue dashed lines in the opening post. That should be the area where the house is allowed to be built.

I was particularly concerned about the orientation of the front door and the open-plan room. The house would then move 1-2 meters further south. The advantage is the beautiful view of undeveloped greenery. Certainly not entirely conventional, but worth considering, in my opinion. The plot is also large enough for a small second terrace on the south side. I'm already a bit jealous.

The floor plan here .is. a rectangle.

Ok, 11 by 9.50 meters is indeed not an exact square, that’s correct. When looking at it, and that alone I have done, it also appears, close to enjoying a non-alcoholic beer, like a square or at least close to it. I myself don’t know whether these usual "town villas" (question to : Have you actually had your term patented?) always represent a square exact to the centimeter, yet I remember always similar problems, namely too much space in the center of the house and too little elsewhere. This exactly results in what I consider a pointless block in the middle, which, in a “pronounced” rectangle, luckily would never have room there.
I fear that first the house type was queried and answered with "preferably a town villa" or something similar, and only then did the planner hide the needs of their customers within it.
is clearly dissatisfied so far; I think a plan should be reconsidered freely, without unnecessary constraints based on sales-oriented terminology. If then such a pseudo-square still emerges, okay, but I don’t really believe that.

And from a floor plan perspective, there are now few negative attributes that a conventional suburban villa possesses.

I absolutely do not want to dismiss the floor plan as bad, but the skewed hallway situation with two coat closet sides is not really successful and I personally would have preferred to look relatively freely into the bright living room and/or beyond into the green rather than at the back wall of the pantry. However, that is my very own feeling and merely (my) opinion.
Assuming the ground floor will still get a shower, which I would consider essential in this family situation, it will be tight anyway, also because the technical room is not exactly spacious.

Do you really want to store these Saxons in the dressing room or utility room?

Don’t say anything against these Saxons, huh!
I do like the idea from , perhaps I would convert the right coat closet part into the shower. If the fireplace is actually intended despite underfloor heating, I would consider an external chimney. That saves space inside and in my opinion also looks stylish; we did it that way and also like it from the outside view.

Don't say anything against these Saxons, okay!

Hehe, the Saxons get locked up.

2 coat closet sides

They would be a thorn in my side too. A wide wardrobe doesn't fit on either side.
However, I wouldn't like to be able to see from the sofa through the hallway to the front door.

At first glance, I see two design flaws here: the pantry enclosed by living spaces, so kept warm all around though it would be better located on the north wall, additionally "heated" by the fireplace; secondly, the fireplace itself: already nonsense in a house with energy saving regulations, even more so in a building energy law house. Take a "Kamin21" (Black Matrix Display, Raspberry, Sound) – authentic, significantly cheaper, emits no overheating, the chimney sweep is unemployed.

We are at the point where the decision for a developer in the area of timber prefab houses [...] has been made

"Decision made" because the company is nice, another company less nice, a third company too expensive, and a fourth you don’t know and/or.

(small family business, ecological timber panel construction with diffusion-open wall structure)

Because of the longest-bearded marketing joke about the breathing wall?

Who is responsible for the planning: architect of the developer

How should we imagine that: did you go there with your wishes and the design came from the "architect," or did he simply "cleanly draw" your own design?
An amateur plan (which remains one even if a pro copied it) typically shows about 20% unrecognized excess area, so with 160 sqm has the potential to be reduced loss-free (!) by about 25 sqm (= 75,000 EUR) – are the competitors read out so far still over budget then?

I myself don’t know whether these usual "town villas" (question to @11ant: Have you actually patented your term?) always represent exactly one square meter to the centimeter, nevertheless I recall always similar problems, namely too much space in the center of the house and too little elsewhere. Exactly from that results this, in my opinion, pointless block in the middle, which would happily never have space there in a "pronounced" rectangle.
I fear that first the house type was queried and this was answered with "gladly a town villa" or similar and the planner only then buried the needs of his clients in it.

The problem of the instead-villa (the term is not protectable, which does not bother me) lies elsewhere but does not concern this design. Also the (aptly phrased) "pointless block in the middle" is here only energetically unfavorable and does not mess up the floor plan entirely, but probably contributes to the unrecognized excess area. The aspect ratio of 22:19 (about 1.15 : 1) is "far enough" from the indeed planner-unfavorable exact square.

I was particularly concerned with the orientation of the front door and the living area. The house would then be moved 1-2 meters further south.

I would rather consider using the entire depth of the building plot for the house and making it narrower instead.