On 20/04/2018 16:03, Bert Coules wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:

my official comments on their plans was to suggest that they built
right up to the boundary, with any fascia overhanging my land - so
that if I wanted to build an extension in the future, it could be
butted right up to their brickwork, just like the existing extensions!

Nice notion.Â* And did they do it?Â* And if they had, and if you then
decided to move without building your matching extension, would the
fascia overhang have proved a problem for your house sale, I wonder?

Bert

As it happened, they decided to build a much smaller extension than
they'd originally planned - only half-width, so it comes nowhere near
the boundary.

I can see that if they'd done it, it might have raised questions in the
future, but I was willing to take the risk - especially as their
*existing* extension is about a foot taller than ours and their fascia
already overhangs our extension.

Just to make it clear, both halves of the semi have existing, flat
roofed extensions butted up to each other and extending out the same
distance. They then have a new, half-width extension added on, but
nowhere near our boundary and we have since added a conservatory about
12" from the boundary.

I'd certainly have no problem buying a house where the nightbours
property overhung a little (this one was like that when I bought it) -
assuming that it was fascia, tile, gutter or anything else that could be
easily removed and a joint incorporated if I ever wanted to build up to
the boundary too.

SteveW