Does this 4" gap make any sense at all? Surely moisture will gt in and
it will be impossible to repair?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st_read_module

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:10:35 +0000, GB wrote:

Does this 4" gap make any sense at all?

It makes the new place detached and avoids party wall stuff...

There must be an awful lot more behind this story than is in that
article. Did none of the now objecting neighbours object at the planning
stage? Particlarly the one with the now obscured gable end window.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:28:39 PM UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:10:35 +0000, GB wrote:



Does this 4" gap make any sense at all?



It makes the new place detached and avoids party wall stuff...



There must be an awful lot more behind this story than is in that

article. Did none of the now objecting neighbours object at the planning

stage? Particlarly the one with the now obscured gable end window.



Since it appeared to be semis each side, I expect they did not want to be made into a terrace. However, the article I read said the residents were "shocked" or something when they "found out". Surely they would have seen it being built ?
Or course the new house would be worth more as a detached, and I would have thought developers would build "detached" whenever possible.

Also, the party wall act would have been relevant if the foundations were deeper than the ones either side, which is quite likely. I suppose they could have avoided this by building on some type of slab.

Simon.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 01:01:10 -0800 (PST), sm_jamieson
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:28:39 PM UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:10:35 +0000, GB wrote:



Does this 4" gap make any sense at all?



It makes the new place detached and avoids party wall stuff...



There must be an awful lot more behind this story than is in that

article. Did none of the now objecting neighbours object at the planning

stage? Particlarly the one with the now obscured gable end window.



Since it appeared to be semis each side, I expect they did not want to be made into a terrace. However, the article I read said the residents were "shocked" or something when they "found out". Surely they would have seen it being built ?

Indeed, shouldn't they have been consulted/invited to comment at the
planning application stage?

--
Frank Erskine

On 30/01/2013 12:06, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 01:01:10 -0800 (PST), sm_jamieson
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:28:39 PM UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:10:35 +0000, GB wrote:



Does this 4" gap make any sense at all?



It makes the new place detached and avoids party wall stuff...



There must be an awful lot more behind this story than is in that

article. Did none of the now objecting neighbours object at the planning

stage? Particlarly the one with the now obscured gable end window.



Since it appeared to be semis each side, I expect they did not want to be made into a terrace. However, the article I read said the residents were "shocked" or something when they "found out". Surely they would have seen it being built ?

Indeed, shouldn't they have been consulted/invited to comment at the
planning application stage?

Maybe they were "shocked" when they "found out" that the planners had
passed it despite their obections.

On 30/01/2013 12:06, Frank Erskine wrote:

Indeed, shouldn't they have been consulted/invited to comment at the
planning application stage?

I note the linked DM story repeatedly refers to "residents". Maybe the
inference is that they are tenants - not owners. Would this affect their
right to consultation and/or invitation to comment?

Indeed, if that is the case, maybe the owner(s) did agree to the
development?

--
Rod

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:32:15 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

On 30/01/2013 12:06, Frank Erskine wrote:

Indeed, shouldn't they have been consulted/invited to comment at the
planning application stage?

I note the linked DM story repeatedly refers to "residents". Maybe the
inference is that they are tenants - not owners. Would this affect their
right to consultation and/or invitation to comment?

Indeed, if that is the case, maybe the owner(s) did agree to the
development?


The addresses get the letters not a person.

It sometimes shows on planning who they consulted.

--
http://www.voucherfreebies.co.uk

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:10:35 +0000, GB wrote:

Does this 4" gap make any sense at all?

It makes the new place detached and avoids party wall stuff...

There must be an awful lot more behind this story than is in that
article. Did none of the now objecting neighbours object at the planning
stage? Particlarly the one with the now obscured gable end window.

Indeed they did.

083629/FO/2007/S2 | Erection of a 2 storey dwellinghouse with
associated garden at rear | Land Between 28 And 30 Allanson Road
Northenden Manchester M22 4HL

http://www.publicaccess.manchester.g...9-OCO-0001.pdf

"Residential Amenity - A number of objections have been received
from surrounding properties who are concerned about the impact of
the proposal on the visual amenity of the street scene and the
fact that numbers 28 and 30 Allanson Road will no longer be
viewed as semi-detached properties in their own right.

The proposal is not considered to have a negative impact on the
visual amenity or character of the area due to the prevalence of
terrace properties along the street.

In addition, concern has been raised regarding the impact, of the
building, on the window and flue in the side elevation of number
28. The dwelling has been designed so that the rear of the
building does not occupy the full width of the plot. As such,
there is a set back at first floor level at the rear which will
enable access and light to the window. There is also access to
the boiler flue.

As for maintenance of the external walls of 28 and 30 Allanson
Road, matters of this nature are not a planning consideration,
and are covered by the provisions of the Party Wall Act. In
addition, matters such as the perceived reduction in the value of
surrounding properties as a result of new developments is not a
material consideration in the determination of planning
applications."

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:10:35 +0000, GB wrote:

Does this 4" gap make any sense at all?

It makes the new place detached and avoids party wall stuff...

There must be an awful lot more behind this story than is in that
article. Did none of the now objecting neighbours object at the planning
stage? Particlarly the one with the now obscured gable end window.

Indeed they did.

083629/FO/2007/S2 | Erection of a 2 storey dwellinghouse with
associated garden at rear | Land Between 28 And 30 Allanson Road
Northenden Manchester M22 4HL

http://www.publicaccess.manchester.g...9-OCO-0001.pdf

"Residential Amenity - A number of objections have been received
from surrounding properties who are concerned about the impact of
the proposal on the visual amenity of the street scene and the
fact that numbers 28 and 30 Allanson Road will no longer be
viewed as semi-detached properties in their own right.

The proposal is not considered to have a negative impact on the
visual amenity or character of the area due to the prevalence of
terrace properties along the street.

In addition, concern has been raised regarding the impact, of the
building, on the window and flue in the side elevation of number
28. The dwelling has been designed so that the rear of the
building does not occupy the full width of the plot. As such,
there is a set back at first floor level at the rear which will
enable access and light to the window. There is also access to
the boiler flue.

As for maintenance of the external walls of 28 and 30 Allanson
Road, matters of this nature are not a planning consideration,
and are covered by the provisions of the Party Wall Act. In
addition, matters such as the perceived reduction in the value of
surrounding properties as a result of new developments is not a
material consideration in the determination of planning
applications."

God knows what producing that **** cost the eventual owner.

On 30/01/2013 10:35, Chris J Dixon wrote:

083629/FO/2007/S2 | Erection of a 2 storey dwellinghouse with
associated garden at rear | Land Between 28 And 30 Allanson Road
Northenden Manchester M22 4HL

[snip]

As for maintenance of the external walls of 28 and 30 Allanson
Road, matters of this nature are not a planning consideration,
and are covered by the provisions of the Party Wall Act.

So what does the Party Wall Act have to say on this situation (ie where
it's been made physically impossible to conduct maintenance on the
dividing wall) - anybody know?
--
David

On 01/02/2013 08:50, Lobster wrote:
On 30/01/2013 10:35, Chris J Dixon wrote:

083629/FO/2007/S2 | Erection of a 2 storey dwellinghouse with
associated garden at rear | Land Between 28 And 30 Allanson Road
Northenden Manchester M22 4HL

[snip]

As for maintenance of the external walls of 28 and 30 Allanson
Road, matters of this nature are not a planning consideration, and
are covered by the provisions of the Party Wall Act.

So what does the Party Wall Act have to say on this situation (ie
where it's been made physically impossible to conduct maintenance on
the dividing wall) - anybody know?


What can be done to weather proof a narrow gap formed where a person is
building on his own land alongside the external wall (e.g. an earlier
back garden extension built up to the Adjoining Owner’s side of the
boundary line?

It is good practice to prevent debris collecting in (or animals
entering) the small gap between two adjacent independent structures and
the Act allows for any works “incidental to the connection of a
structure with the premises adjoining it”. There are several proprietary
products that can effectively seal the gap between two buildings without
having to cut into or permanently fix to either building. The Building
Owner erecting the second structure would usually
carry out this work.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/upl...in_booklet.pdf

--
Rod

On Friday, February 1, 2013 9:11:22 AM UTC, polygonum wrote:

It is good practice to prevent debris collecting in (or animals

entering) the small gap between two adjacent independent structures and

the Act allows for any works “incidental to the connection of a

structure with the premises adjoining it”. There are several proprietary

products that can effectively seal the gap between two buildings without

having to cut into or permanently fix to either building. The Building

Owner erecting the second structure would usually

carry out this work.

In the '60s my father, a builder,bought a house with a similar gap between the adjacent properties. The basement was damp and uninhabitable. He cut out and replaced an entire course of bricks in segments, inserting a slate damp proof layer. Apparently,he got lots of dead cats out of the gap between the houses.

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
On 30/01/2013 10:35, Chris J Dixon wrote:

083629/FO/2007/S2 | Erection of a 2 storey dwellinghouse with
associated garden at rear | Land Between 28 And 30 Allanson Road
Northenden Manchester M22 4HL

[snip]

As for maintenance of the external walls of 28 and 30 Allanson
Road, matters of this nature are not a planning consideration,
and are covered by the provisions of the Party Wall Act.

So what does the Party Wall Act have to say on this situation (ie where
it's been made physically impossible to conduct maintenance on the
dividing wall) - anybody know?

I cant see how that is ever possible. There is always
access from either side of it. And its an internal wall
so it isnt as likely to need say repointing.

GB wrote:
Does this 4" gap make any sense at all? Surely moisture will gt in and
it will be impossible to repair?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st_read_module


Never mind the moisture getting in now. That should be fine as long as
the brickwork is up to scratch. The real fun's going to start when *any*
of the houses get old enough to need repointing. I'm surprised they got
either planning permission or building control approval, as even
inspecting the end walls properly would be impossible.

After looking at the pictures of the adjoining houses before the new one
was built, I'd say the repointing problem isn't all that far away,
either, and it doesn't seem to have been done as part of the works,
looking at the visible corners.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 29/01/2013 22:44, John Williamson wrote:
GB wrote:
Does this 4" gap make any sense at all? Surely moisture will gt in
and it will be impossible to repair?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st_read_module


Never mind the moisture getting in now. That should be fine as long as
the brickwork is up to scratch. The real fun's going to start when *any*
of the houses get old enough to need repointing. I'm surprised they got
either planning permission or building control approval, as even
inspecting the end walls properly would be impossible.

This is quite normal. New estates are built with gaps too small for any
access.

Our next-door neighbours applied for planning permission for an
extension (in the end, they changed to a smaller one) that would have
been very close to, but not up to, our border. The council planners said
nothing about the small gap, however we wrote and suggested that it
would be better built right to the border, allowing us to do the same
later and avoiding this very problem.

SteveW

Well that is just stupid is it not. after all the building cannot be
decorated either if they are that close. It seems to be a problem just
waiting to happen, and if there are claims I'm sure the insurance boys will
argue over this for years.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"SteveW" wrote in message
...
On 29/01/2013 22:44, John Williamson wrote:
GB wrote:
Does this 4" gap make any sense at all? Surely moisture will gt in
and it will be impossible to repair?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st_read_module


Never mind the moisture getting in now. That should be fine as long as
the brickwork is up to scratch. The real fun's going to start when *any*
of the houses get old enough to need repointing. I'm surprised they got
either planning permission or building control approval, as even
inspecting the end walls properly would be impossible.

This is quite normal. New estates are built with gaps too small for any
access.

Our next-door neighbours applied for planning permission for an extension
(in the end, they changed to a smaller one) that would have been very
close to, but not up to, our border. The council planners said nothing
about the small gap, however we wrote and suggested that it would be
better built right to the border, allowing us to do the same later and
avoiding this very problem.

SteveW

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:44:50 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

GB wrote:
Does this 4" gap make any sense at all? Surely moisture will gt in and
it will be impossible to repair?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st_read_module


Never mind the moisture getting in now. That should be fine as long as
the brickwork is up to scratch. The real fun's going to start when *any*
of the houses get old enough to need repointing. I'm surprised they got
either planning permission or building control approval, as even
inspecting the end walls properly would be impossible.

After looking at the pictures of the adjoining houses before the new one
was built, I'd say the repointing problem isn't all that far away,
either, and it doesn't seem to have been done as part of the works,
looking at the visible corners.

Well, at least they won't have problems caused by snow on the carport.

Nick

[Default] On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:44:50 +0000, a certain chimpanzee,
John Williamson , randomly hit the
keyboard and wrote:

I'm surprised they got
either planning permission or building control approval, as even
inspecting the end walls properly would be impossible.

The Building Regulations do not cover the distances to a boundary
(except for any unprotected area on or facing a boundary and for the
fire resistance of the materials) nor access for maintenance or
repair.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have I strayed"?

Since there was a big discussion about a 1 foot gap some years ago when a
neighbour built an extension, I'd have thought this one was a nono, unless
you have some kind of space alien builders aroung there!

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"GB" wrote in message
...
Does this 4" gap make any sense at all? Surely moisture will gt in and it
will be impossible to repair?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st_read_module

On 29/01/2013 22:10, GB wrote:
Does this 4" gap make any sense at all? Surely moisture will gt in and
it will be impossible to repair?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st_read_module

Lots of places seem to get built with gaps too small for access these
days...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:35:25 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 29/01/2013 22:10, GB wrote:
Does this 4" gap make any sense at all? Surely moisture will gt in and
it will be impossible to repair?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st_read_module

Lots of places seem to get built with gaps too small for access these
days...

Here's a good'un - rendering and poor pointing
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll...,322, ,1,3.72
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

GB wrote:
(14-foot house)

14 feet? Loads of room. This one's in for planning permission for the
second time. Slightly less than 10 feet:
http://goo.gl/maps/x5MSW

JGH

On Saturday, February 2, 2013 1:16:19 AM UTC, jgharston wrote:
GB wrote:

(14-foot house)



14 feet? Loads of room. This one's in for planning permission for the

second time. Slightly less than 10 feet:

http://goo.gl/maps/x5MSW



JGH

How about this one for sale near me ?
It is 8 feet.

http://www.brianholt.co.uk/property-...ry/earlsdon-10

Simon.

On Monday, February 4, 2013 1:11:24 PM UTC, sm_jamieson wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 1:16:19 AM UTC, jgharston wrote:

GB wrote:



(14-foot house)







14 feet? Loads of room. This one's in for planning permission for the



second time. Slightly less than 10 feet:



http://goo.gl/maps/x5MSW







JGH



How about this one for sale near me ?

It is 8 feet.



http://www.brianholt.co.uk/property-...ry/earlsdon-10



Simon.

Actually counting the bricks its a bit wider, the internal rooms are 8 feet.
Simon.

On 04/02/2013 13:11, sm_jamieson wrote:

How about this one for sale near me ?
It is 8 feet.

http://www.brianholt.co.uk/property-...ry/earlsdon-10

Simon.


That's the first time I have seen paddle stairs used as the access to
the first floor.

On Monday, February 4, 2013 1:29:13 PM UTC, Andrew May wrote:
On 04/02/2013 13:11, sm_jamieson wrote:



How about this one for sale near me ?

It is 8 feet.



http://www.brianholt.co.uk/property-...ry/earlsdon-10



Simon.





That's the first time I have seen paddle stairs used as the access to

the first floor.

Wouldn't fancy getting a wardrobe up there unless twas to be built in situ