Perhaps someone would be good enough to clarify the situation here.
Our neighbour has applied for planning permission for an extension at
the rear, with its wall being exactly up to the boundary line. I
understand that is his right.
But it seems that there is no automatic right for the edge of the roof
to protrude onto our property, and my research suggests this would be a >trespass. Correct? So his wall needs to be set back far enough to keep
all roofing structures his side.
A major issue seems to be the proximity of our conservatory wall, which
is something under 2 feet from the boundary. Just enough space for a
ladder to access the main wall.
So any roof overhang would prevent su8ch a ladder being erected there
for maintenance our side.
Worse, they'll obviously have to excavate their foundations right up to
ours, which is worrying.
Is this the sort of thing I should expect the council planners to sort
out? Are building reg's relevant at all, or is it part and parcel of
the planning?
Perhaps someone would be good enough to clarify the situation here.
Our neighbour has applied for planning permission for an extension at
the rear, with its wall being exactly up to the boundary line. I
understand that is his right.
But it seems that there is no automatic right for the edge of the roof
to protrude onto our property, and my research suggests this would be a trespass. Correct? So his wall needs to be set back far enough to keep
all roofing structures his side.
A major issue seems to be the proximity of our conservatory wall, which
is something under 2 feet from the boundary. Just enough space for a
ladder to access the main wall.
So any roof overhang would prevent su8ch a ladder being erected there
for maintenance our side.
Worse, they'll obviously have to excavate their foundations right up to
ours, which is worrying.
Is this the sort of thing I should expect the council planners to sort
out? Are building reg's relevant at all, or is it part and parcel of the planning?
TIA.
[snip]A major issue seems to be the proximity of our conservatory wall, which
is something under 2 feet from the boundary. Just enough space for a
ladder to access the main wall.
So any roof overhang would prevent su8ch a ladder being erected there
for maintenance our side.
Two feet is rather too small a gap to leave between the two extensions. Maintenance of the two outside walls will always be a problem.
One sensible way round this is to have a single party wall between the
two extensions, and for you to reconstruct yours accordingly. That's a
good long term solution that gives you a few extra feet of usable space,
and solves the maintenance issue. It does require some cooperation, though.
Perhaps someone would be good enough to clarify the situation here.
Our neighbour has applied for planning permission for an extension at
the rear, with its wall being exactly up to the boundary line. I
understand that is his right.
But it seems that there is no automatic right for the edge of the roof
to protrude onto our property, and my research suggests this would be a >trespass. Correct? So his wall needs to be set back far enough to keep
all roofing structures his side.
Is this the sort of thing I should expect the council planners to sort
out? Are building reg's relevant at all, or is it part and parcel of the >planning?
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
[snip]A major issue seems to be the proximity of our conservatory wall, which
is something under 2 feet from the boundary. Just enough space for a
ladder to access the main wall.
So any roof overhang would prevent su8ch a ladder being erected there
for maintenance our side.
Two feet is rather too small a gap to leave between the two extensions.
Maintenance of the two outside walls will always be a problem.
One sensible way round this is to have a single party wall between the
two extensions, and for you to reconstruct yours accordingly. That's a
good long term solution that gives you a few extra feet of usable space,
and solves the maintenance issue. It does require some cooperation, though.
It doesn't solve the maintenance issue, which seems to be about access to an upper storey that is not on the boundary. ie single storey conservatory, with the main wall above accessed via a ladder placed on the boundary.
If you build a party wall then there's nowhere to put the ladder.
But I would investigate scaffolding towers and roof ladders - it may be there's an alternative access solution that doesn't involve a ladder being placed from the boundary side, but instead running parallel (inboard of) the boundary.
Does a householder have any rights to access parts of their property using a neighbour's land? I assume you can't insist they don't build something because you need to place a ladder to reach something on your property?
Theo
The other way round is for your neighbour to agree to step his extension
back a bit onto his own land. He'll need to do that anyway, if you
insist the footings are wholly on his land.
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 08:31:34 +0000, Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
Perhaps someone would be good enough to clarify the situation here.
Our neighbour has applied for planning permission for an extension at
the rear, with its wall being exactly up to the boundary line. I
understand that is his right.
But it seems that there is no automatic right for the edge of the roof
to protrude onto our property, and my research suggests this would be a
trespass. Correct? So his wall needs to be set back far enough to keep
all roofing structures his side.
Yes. It either needs to end completely flush with the boundary, with no protrusions (which it could do, if the roof slopes away from the boundary)
or leave enough space.
Is this the sort of thing I should expect the council planners to sort
out? Are building reg's relevant at all, or is it part and parcel of the
planning?
The "red line" of the planning application will be their property boundary. If the building plans submitted with the application show it extending
beyond the red line, it won't be approved. If they get permission to build completely up to the boundary, but then actually build beyond it (eg, by attaching guttering which protrudes into your property), then that will be both a trespass and a breach of their planning permission. So if that happens, you will have a twin line of attack - you can pursue them directly via the legal process, and you can report the breach to the planning authority who will, in turn investigate.
Ideally, though, you want to avoid needing to do that. If you possibly can, now is the time to be having a discussion with your neighbour rather than leaving it until after the fact.
As it happens, I'm aware of a situation almost precisely analagous to this.
I became aware of it when I was informed (in my role as a councillor) of the enforcement case arising from the new extension projecting slightly over the boundary. The case was closed NFA, and no reconstruction work took place, so I don't have an official insight into the resolution. But I'm reliably informed that the outcome was for the owner of the projecting building to
pay the owner of the property it was projecting into a sum of sufficient magnitude for their objection to be withdrawn.
Mark
On 04/11/2024 21:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
Be aware that planning permission can be granted even if applicant
The "red line" of the planning application will be their property boundary. >> If the building plans submitted with the application show it extending
beyond the red line, it won't be approved. If they get permission to build >> completely up to the boundary, but then actually build beyond it (eg, by
attaching guttering which protrudes into your property), then that will be >> both a trespass and a breach of their planning permission. So if that
happens, you will have a twin line of attack - you can pursue them directly >> via the legal process, and you can report the breach to the planning
authority who will, in turn investigate.
doesnt own the land or have legal access to it.
The "red line" of the planning application will be their property boundary. >If the building plans submitted with the application show it extending
beyond the red line, it won't be approved.
In message <s5diijll7n1ablnoa755crasl11j9fufbm@4ax.com>, at 21:07:51 on
Mon, 4 Nov 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
The "red line" of the planning application will be their property
boundary.
If the building plans submitted with the application show it extending
beyond the red line, it won't be approved.
Are the Land Registry plans sufficiently detailed to determine if the boundary is one side of the wall, the other side, or up the middle?
On a practical note, rather than a legal one, I do not recommend
"go[ing] for the full width" despite what architects may say.
If the property has a garden at the rear, the gardener will need to get
their mower, etc. to the garden and most gardeners around here, (YMMV according to local customs), will not entertain a job that necessitates lugging their gear through the house because the building has been
expanded right to the boundary on both sides. Your neighbour may say, "Fine, we do not have a gardener - we look after it ourselves.". But they'll still need to transport the garden waste through the house,
(unless they're composting and even then, not all garden waste can be composted).
An additional problem comes when it is time to sell the property as the
pool of potential purchasers is reduced as those with gardeners will not
be interested. (A friend had precisely this experience recently. They were looking at buying a house where a full width extension had been
built. They assumed the garden and rear of the property could be
accessed via the garage but the garage only provided access to the
kitchen. As a result, having viewed the property, they did not put in
an offer. When they communicated this to the estate agent, the EA
replied it had been a common reason cited for not submitting an offer.)
Ditto for window cleaners and also the delivery and erection of sheds
and other outbuildings, ornaments, features and what-not.
A small path at the side of the house saves a lot of trouble down the
line, IMHO.
Regards
S.P.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 429 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 118:08:18 |
| Calls: | 9,056 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,396 |
| Messages: | 6,016,630 |