neighbour's proposed extension

[Mike Scott]

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.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Mike Scott
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.

There are ways to construct a roof that doesn't need to protrude. For
example a flat roof with a slight slope away from the boundary.

Post by Mike Scott
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 something where Party Wall rules might assist?

Post by Mike Scott
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?

Building Regs and Planning are two separate silos.

[GB]

Post by Mike Scott
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.

You should obviously discuss your concerns with your neighbour in a
friendly and positive manner, if at all possible. It's far better to
head off issues, rather than being at loggerheads.

Check out the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992. This allows your
neighbour to come onto your land for the purpose of repair and renewal.
What it doesn't do is allow them to plonk part of their footings on your
land. It's a moot point whether it allows them onto your land for the
purposes of constructing a new part of their building.

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.

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.

Post by Mike Scott
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?

Nope. Planning are not concerned with whether it is buildable.

Post by Mike Scott
TIA.

[Theo]

Post by GB

Post by Mike Scott
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.

[snip]

Post by GB
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

[GB]

Post by Theo

Post by GB

Post by Mike Scott
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.

[snip]

Post by GB
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.

You are quite right. I misinterpreted the OP.

Presumably, on the occasions that access is required, the gutters could
be temporarily removed? This just needs an agreement between the
neighbours.

Post by Theo
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

[Peter Johnson]

Post by GB
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.

Not necessarily. For one wall of my extension the footings go up the
the boundary and the wall was built with the outer face on the edge of
the footings. (That wall was in line with the side of the house, but I
haven't checked where the original builders put the footings.)

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 08:31:34 +0000, Mike Scott

Post by Mike Scott
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.

Post by Mike Scott
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

[Robert]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 08:31:34 +0000, Mike Scott

Post by Mike Scott
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.

Post by Mike Scott
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

Be aware that planning permission can be granted even if applicant
doesnt own the land or have legal access to it.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Robert

Post by Mark Goodge
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.

Be aware that planning permission can be granted even if applicant
doesnt own the land or have legal access to it.

Yes, but that's not the point here. Planning permission won't be granted if
the detailed plans go outside the red line. The red line could extend onto
property not owned by the applicant, but in a situation like this that would
be extremely unlikely. What's more probable is that the red line will be the
boundaries of the applicant's own property. In which case, he won't be able
to build beyond them without being in breach of the permission, if granted.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

Post by Mark Goodge
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?

[Mike Scott]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mark Goodge
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?

The plans sent to the council show the build up to but not over the
boundary line.

First, thanks to all who've replied. It's clarified the situation somewhat.

Second, I popped a note into the neighbour's outlining my concerns and
inviting them round for a chat about the matter. They seemed very open
to my thoughts and to the idea of modifying things. Apparently they'd
been told by their architect to "go for the full width" or something
like that. They were quite happy for me to send in a formal objection,
which I've now done and given them a copy.

Meanwhile, I've been checking out the Party Wall Act. Especially in
light of the 'garden wall' thread hereabouts. It does look as though
surveyors (£££) will need to be appointed as they want to dig within 3
metres and probably below our foundations. I wonder if they might even
say 'no can do'.

[Simon Parker]

Post by Mike Scott

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mark Goodge
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?

The plans sent to the council show the build up to but not over the
boundary line.
First, thanks to all who've replied. It's clarified the situation somewhat.
Second, I popped a note into the neighbour's outlining my concerns and
inviting them round for a chat about the matter. They seemed very open
to my thoughts and to the idea of modifying things. Apparently they'd
been told by their architect to "go for the full width" or something
like that. They were quite happy for me to send in a formal objection,
which I've now done and given them a copy.
Meanwhile, I've been checking out the Party Wall Act. Especially in
light of the 'garden wall' thread hereabouts. It does look as though
surveyors (£££) will need to be appointed as they want to dig within 3
metres and probably below our foundations. I wonder if they might even
say 'no can do'.

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.

[Mike Scott]

Post by Simon Parker
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.

Wise words, but many years too late for these properties. They're
sort-of link-semi-detached: semi's with a garage to the side and what
used to be a roofed but external passage round the side. Those have
all(?) been boxed in; the previous neighbour in particular converted the
passage with its outside loo and coal shed into a utility room(*). Also
the was-a-garage seems from the plan to now be divided into a store-room
and study. None of us has direct access front-to-rear -- very good for
small kids, but I'm wondering how the current owners intend bringing the
building materials through.


(*) I'd show the plan on the council planning site, but there's probably
a privacy issue.