Surprising changes to the construction plan by the structural engineer

Hello everyone,

the construction of our single-family house has just started – the foundation is finished and the first row of hollow bricks has been laid. I thought trust is good, but checking is better, so I measured all the rooms and brick positions. Compared to the construction plan, as created by the architect and approved by the building authority, I found various deviations and immediately informed my general contractor. He told me that everything is correct – the structural engineer had only made some changes for structural reasons. Indeed, it seems all of this is due to structural considerations, but now several walls are 17.5 cm thick instead of 11.5 cm (the architect had previously included some load-bearing 17.5 cm walls, but not so many). Overall, we lose 0.5 m² and some walls were shifted by 6 cm (to avoid protrusions).

This caught me off guard and is annoying in some places (e.g. narrower cross gable – placing a table here was already tight in terms of width and now it’s off by another 12 cm). We were never informed that something might change and even after the structural calculations, we were not told that something would definitely change...

My questions now are:
- Is this normal? Has this happened to you or were you informed beforehand?
- Do I have claims for defects or do I have to accept this (this is a bit general now, but maybe someone knows comparable cases? 0.5 square meters correspond roughly to about 1000€ construction cost...

Thanks in advance for your input...

That is not normal. It happened to us with an unmarked support of a middle purlin. We became aware of it during a construction meeting. We didn’t even try to assert claims for defects, but went straight into a mutual solution finding. This was found quickly. The square meter calculation is useless to you. You want to put a table in there anyway. Focus on this solution and get creative with your general contractor. Which table should it be and for how many people and for what purpose, can it be a different format-adapted table, can the area be enlarged again, what alternatives are there...

because of table furniture etc

in the end you have to buy something new anyway. annoying that you didn't get any info. Well, if in the end the roof collapses I prefer load-bearing walls

Changes due to the static calculations are quite normal. Unfortunately, the static calculations were apparently only addressed at the last minute and then construction just proceeded. I find that shows that the architect (from my subjective perception) works rather carelessly. An architect should know in advance which walls are load-bearing and how they must be positioned without offsets/protrusions, so that they don’t have to be shifted by 6 cm afterwards.

What is absolutely unacceptable is that the new planning was not forwarded to you. Request the new documents promptly, there could still be further surprises lurking. I would also monitor the other trades more closely. Who knows where else the architect planned carelessly.

I think this shows that the architect (from my subjective feeling) works rather sloppily. An architect should know in advance which walls are load-bearing and how they should be positioned without offsets/protrusions(?), so that they don't have to be shifted by 6 cm afterwards.

I suspect the shift results from the width of a transverse gable being maximized (?) and consequently the offset of the exterior wall cannot be adjusted on the outside to follow the thickened interior walls. But the change should have been communicated and then, for example, the solution could have been chosen to build the now load-bearing interior walls in sand-lime brick and keep the wall thickness. Surprises are always bad for the client, but on the other hand, one is often warned here not to “tailor” rooms too precisely so that they don't become too tight in finished dimensions.

Changes must be confirmed by you, it cannot be changed so "High-Life" just like that. First, request current plans. Theoretically, you could demand the dismantling, but maybe one should not go that far in the first conversation...