I often agree with the elephant as well, but here he is mistaken (and the porcelain shop also came to my mind here...).
No, §34 says nothing, but absolutely NOTHING about design. It's purely about the fact that you are not allowed to suddenly put a five-story building with shops on the ground floor in a developed single-family house area (thank God!), that setback areas must be observed, and that the extent of structural use corresponds to the surroundings. Although in terms of densification, more is often possible. At least in Bavaria, the state government wants it this way, that you should preferably densify first before building on more land. This is intended to counteract rampant land consumption and urban sprawl. This means: if you build in an old single-family house area where the extent of structural use is about 0.2 because these are all post-war houses where a small house with a pointed gable roof and mezzanine story was built and the large garden was used for self-sufficiency, you have very good chances to get a floor area ratio of 0.4 approved if you have acquired a plot and want to build new.
And whether it fits or not: long live diversity! I'm so tired of these residential areas where everything looks the same because the development plan allows hardly any individuality. Where the color of the roof tiles is meticulously specified (although in a neighboring village there is a new building with such spotted roof tiles, supposed to be Mediterranean, but it just looks painfully ugly - that was the first time I missed regulations...), the facade color, the roof pitch, and so on and so forth. BORING!!!
Better variety. Even if there are one or two houses that I personally find horrific (there are more than just the ugly fake villas, which I do not approve of); I'd rather have that than uniformity!
I always think one should consider how these towns or villages are that are described as "picturesque" in every travel guide. Do you really believe they came about according to a development plan? No, everyone just built what they fancied. Those who had a lot of money built extravagantly and showed off; those who had less couldn’t. It evolved over centuries. Even in the beautiful cities we all love, you rarely find just one architectural style, but a mix - and that’s what makes it.
Therefore my creed: let people build how they like. Of course, there must be a framework, but it should concern structural regulations regarding fire protection, water protection, etc. Not design!
I wouldn’t want to build in the style of the fifties because all the other houses look like that. Nonsense! Do something great that you like and enjoy it. It doesn’t matter at all whether it enhances the surroundings and you can show off with it. I wouldn’t care. It just has to please you.
For me, of course, my house is the most beautiful in the entire street, if not the whole village! But that wasn’t my motivation to build. And whether others see it that way and if I thereby enhanced the street—who cares? Not me. I like our house—even if we probably would have built quite differently if we hadn’t had to accept many limitations due to the relatively small building plot. But from what was possible, we got the best (for us!!!) out of it. I enjoy that.
But—now the big BUT:
No matter how you build, I definitely wouldn’t do it like this. Much has already been said, I don’t want to repeat it. But in my opinion, the current design is rubbish. Build now for yourselves, for your CURRENT situation—not for what might possibly be in 40 years. A bungalow usually costs more than a one-and-a-half-story house—and if the floor plan is to be good, it is more difficult. Consider whether it’s worth it to you or if a classic house with an upper floor better suits your needs and the plot.
Storage space is missing in any case. Even if you’re not a collector—with two children you simply have a lot of stuff. It has to be stored. A sufficiently large utility room, where laundry can simply be left lying around and where you can set up a drying rack without the kids knocking it over while playing—that would be important to me.
Guest WC or second bathroom: you can live without it, but I find it very pleasant if guests don’t have to enter my private area. At least a guest WC I would plan.
A great bungalow has something—your current plan is not a GREAT bungalow. All rooms are on one level, but great is something else. The long hallway past all rooms until you reach the public area (living, dining, kitchen). That alone is already suboptimal.
I would reconsider whether it really has to be a bungalow. If yes, then add a few square meters; otherwise, it won’t be really good. Plan for storage, divided into public and private areas. Access to the public area should not pass through the private area. That should be a basic rule. Through-rooms are okay, but usually poorly usable—a good plan doesn’t have them (except perhaps the dressing room).
So in short: there is still a lot of potential...