I have to find the exact centre line of the party wall which divides two
semi-detached bungalows. Unfortunately, internal and external changes over
the years mean that simply measuring between the nearest windows on each
property and dividing by two won't necessarily give an accurate result.

Before the two owners get involved with anything more drastic, is it
reasonable to suppose that the external chimney stack sits squarely across
the dividing line? If so, then the centre of the stack marks the centre of
the dividing wall.

Many thanks.

On 20/04/2018 08:05, Bert Coules wrote:
I have to find the exact centre line of the party wall which divides two
semi-detached bungalows. Unfortunately, internal and external changes
over the years mean that simply measuring between the nearest windows on
each property and dividing by two won't necessarily give an accurate
result.

Before the two owners get involved with anything more drastic, is it
reasonable to suppose that the external chimney stack sits squarely
across the dividing line?Â* If so, then the centre of the stack marks the
centre of the dividing wall.


I assume this is about your neighbour's complaint that your loft
extension has trespassed on their side (your post last year).

In that context I think the answer must be "no". I say that because the
centre of the party wall *at any point* is the centre of the party wall
*at that point*. I don't think you can assume that those points are on
a straight line, that the chimney stack was built precisely across the
property line and four square to it, or anything else of much use. Bear
in mind that AIUI you cannot even take it as an irrefutable fact that a
straight party wall was built 50:50 across the property line.

But a photo or 2 might help as I'm puzzled how the chimney ends up
bveing the best guide to where the party wall runs.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin,

Many thanks for your thoughts, and yes, this is the ongoing saga of the
boundary overhang.

I entirely take your point about not being able to make assumptions about
the exact position of the boundary.

I'll see what I can manage regarding some photos and some more detailed
information regarding the situation.

Bert

Bert Coules wrote:

I have to find the exact centre line of the party wall which divides two
semi-detached bungalows. Unfortunately, internal and external changes over
the years mean that simply measuring between the nearest windows on each
property and dividing by two won't necessarily give an accurate result.

Like others, I am finding it a bit hard to get my head round the
situation.

Can we assume that the party wall is in one plane?

Do you know, or can you estimate its thickness?

Can you measure to the wall internally so as to transfer its
position externally?

You suggest that the windows are no longer symmetrical, but they
should at least permit you to be able to chalk up externally
where the internal edge of the wall lies.

If you can't do this, perhaps you need some more professional
surveying equipment, and/or someone to operate it.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On 20/04/2018 08:42, Bert Coules wrote:
Robin,

Many thanks for your thoughts, and yes, this is the ongoing saga of the
boundary overhang.

I entirely take your point about not being able to make assumptions
about the exact position of the boundary.

I'll see what I can manage regarding some photos and some more detailed
information regarding the situation.

Bert

If you are trying to determine if your loft conversion extends beyond
the party wall can you lift a floor board in the loft next to the wall
and drill a small hole through the ceiling below?

That will either prove its on your side or give you a spy hole on your
neighbour :-)

Mike

Chris,

Thanks for that.

Like others, I am finding it a bit hard to get my
head round the situation.

I understand that: there have been times when I've been in much the same
situation.

I'll try to post a more detailed explanation a little later, with some
photos if I can manage it, but the basic dispute is this:

For whatever reason, the end wall of the new rear extension and dormer was
not built in exactly the position shown on the council-approved plans; the
brickwork (of the extension) and the timber construction (of the dormer) are
both within my side of what the drawings describe as the "alleged centre
line" of the party wall, but a uPVC end fascia, some cladding and some
tiling all overhang it. If the centre line is accurate then the maximum
overhang is 40mm (the tiles) and the minimum is 20mm (everything else).

If the overhang exists then I am in breach of my planning permission and
will have to reduce it. But whether or not it does exist, and if so by how
much. depends on the *exact* location of the boundary line, so that is what
has to be determined.

Bert

Mike,

The simple, direct approach. I like it.

Bert

Party walls can be a pain consider yourself lucky if yours is simply a straight one. Where we lived before there were some large Victorian terraces opposite, some were double fronted with the front door in the middle with rooms either side. The next house was single fronted, one window and an offset door. When you went round the back it was vice versa the party walls dog legged between the houses.

Richard

get Holmes in .......

Jimbo wrote:

get Holmes in ....

Oh, if only I could.

Besides if it ever goes to law, it may well be determined that with the
variables involved you did the best you could under the circumstances, which
would I'm sure **** off the neighbour.

its one of those how long is a piece of string issues. Without significantly
demolishing the wall, how can you do anything other than you did?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 20/04/2018 08:05, Bert Coules wrote:
I have to find the exact centre line of the party wall which divides two
semi-detached bungalows. Unfortunately, internal and external changes
over the years mean that simply measuring between the nearest windows on
each property and dividing by two won't necessarily give an accurate
result.

Before the two owners get involved with anything more drastic, is it
reasonable to suppose that the external chimney stack sits squarely
across the dividing line? If so, then the centre of the stack marks the
centre of the dividing wall.


I assume this is about your neighbour's complaint that your loft extension
has trespassed on their side (your post last year).

In that context I think the answer must be "no". I say that because the
centre of the party wall *at any point* is the centre of the party wall
*at that point*. I don't think you can assume that those points are on a
straight line, that the chimney stack was built precisely across the
property line and four square to it, or anything else of much use. Bear
in mind that AIUI you cannot even take it as an irrefutable fact that a
straight party wall was built 50:50 across the property line.

But a photo or 2 might help as I'm puzzled how the chimney ends up bveing
the best guide to where the party wall runs.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 20/04/2018 09:25, Bert Coules wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for that.

Like others, I am finding it a bit hard to get my
head round the situation.

I understand that: there have been times when I've been in much the same
situation.

I'll try to post a more detailed explanation a little later, with some
photos if I can manage it, but the basic dispute is this:

For whatever reason, the end wall of the new rear extension and dormer
was not built in exactly the position shown on the council-approved
plans; the brickwork (of the extension) and the timber construction (of
the dormer) are both within my side of what the drawings describe as the
"alleged centre line" of the party wall, but a uPVC end fascia, some
cladding and some tiling all overhang it.Â* If the centre line is
accurate then the maximum overhang is 40mm (the tiles) and the minimum
is 20mm (everything else).

If the overhang exists then I am in breach of my planning permission and
will have to reduce it.Â* But whether or not it does exist, and if so by
how much. depends on the *exact* location of the boundary line, so that
is what has to be determined.

Bert

Are *the planners* saying it has to be reduced? Seems slightly crazy to
be in a dispute over 20 mm encroachment of facia/cladding. (Accepting
that neighbours are almost by definition irrational).

There was a case near where I lived in Bristol many years ago where
someone had PP to rebuild a workshop adjacent to a back garden, one of
the conditions being that the roof height would not change. They went
and actually constructed the new roof over the top of the old one before
removing the latter, with something like an extra foot of height which,
for a garden only 12 feet deep made quite a difference to the light.
Local council called for enforcement and the builder appealed to
Secretary of State. On appeal the inspector who came down from London
(retired Squadron Leader) ruled for the builder.

Brian Gaff asked:

Without significantly demolishing the wall, how can you do anything other
than you did?

I spoke to the builders this morning. They say that they can significantly
reduce the amount by which the fascia, cladding and tiles protrude from the
basic wall. They also accept that the initial mistake was their fault and
will do the job at their own expense. This will be in accordance with the
planning department's running: "trimming back" was specifically mentioned.

The exact position of the party wall centre line might not now be a vital
issue: the builders are happy to accept the "assumed boundary line" as shown
on the drawings.

Bert

"newshound" wrote:

Are *the planners* saying it has to be reduced?

They are. "Trimming back" was specifically mentioned.

Your extra-height roof story is encouraging.

Bert

"...the planning department's ruling..." I meant, of course. Apologies.

On 20/04/2018 11:37, newshound wrote:
snip

Are *the planners* saying it has to be reduced? Seems slightly crazy to
be in a dispute over 20 mm encroachment of facia/cladding. (Accepting
that neighbours are almost by definition irrational).


As I think I said last year, one way of approaching the issue is to ask
"could the neighbour do a mirror image loft conversion with *precisely*
the same dimensions?"

If the answer is no then ISTM the value of the neighbour's property has
been reduced; and someone has dropped a stitch. Luckily it seems from
the OP's further posts it was the builder who - mirabile dictu - has
accepted liability and undertaken to fix it. If that is delivered then
I'd say the builder is, despite the error, one of the good guys.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin wrote:

Luckily it seems from
the OP's further posts it was the builder who - mirabile dictu - has
accepted liability and undertaken to fix it. If that is delivered then
I'd say the builder is, despite the error, one of the good guys.

That is exactly the case.

Bert

On Friday, 20 April 2018 12:08:13 UTC+1, Bert Coules wrote:
"newshound" wrote:

Are *the planners* saying it has to be reduced?

They are. "Trimming back" was specifically mentioned.

Your extra-height roof story is encouraging.

Bert

So it's open to question and trivial. Odds are they won't take it to court.


NT

On 20/04/2018 14:47, wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 12:08:13 UTC+1, Bert Coules wrote:
"newshound" wrote:

Are *the planners* saying it has to be reduced?

They are. "Trimming back" was specifically mentioned.

Your extra-height roof story is encouraging.

Bert

So it's open to question and trivial. Odds are they won't take it to court.





Depends who you mean by "they". If the planning department then they
don't have to as a first step. They can issue an enforcement notice.
That puts the monkey on the OP's back either to comply, appeal or ignore
it. If he ignores it then it is indeed the council the council's
decision whether or not to prosecute. I've no idea if the OP's council
has a track record of doing so; or how the OP feels about a criminal
conviction and fine. (There's no jail time!) And then of course they
can still require rectification.

If by "they" you mean the neighbour, then I would not be so confident if
- as seems now - it'd be a pretty straightforward case, and not one that
requires a vast investment. They pay a party wall surveyor to report on
the extension; the report shows the extension trespasses on their
property and is not to the plans submitted; they take that to a
solicitor and sue the OP. ISTM they are very likely to win - and hence
get their costs as well as an order to rectify. (I'm sorry to say I'm
unimpressed by the precedent of the "too high roof" as that involved no
trespass on a neighbour's property, nor any obvious detriment to them.)

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin wrote:

Depends who you mean by "they".

I was about to make that very point. I accept that I'm in breach of the
planning permission and am taking steps to rectify it in exactly the manner
requested by the planners. Assuming that I can successfully do that, there
will be no reason for the council to take any action against me.

They would be in their rights to do so of course if I didn't carry out the
remedial work, but unless there's a problem with the neighbours over getting
it done I don't anticipate that happening.

I can't immediately think of any reason strong enough for the neighbours to
want to take the matter to court. But anything's possible I suppose.

Bert

On 20/04/2018 09:25, Bert Coules wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for that.

Like others, I am finding it a bit hard to get my
head round the situation.

I understand that: there have been times when I've been in much the same
situation.

I'll try to post a more detailed explanation a little later, with some
photos if I can manage it, but the basic dispute is this:

For whatever reason, the end wall of the new rear extension and dormer
was not built in exactly the position shown on the council-approved
plans; the brickwork (of the extension) and the timber construction (of
the dormer) are both within my side of what the drawings describe as the
"alleged centre line" of the party wall, but a uPVC end fascia, some
cladding and some tiling all overhang it.Â* If the centre line is
accurate then the maximum overhang is 40mm (the tiles) and the minimum
is 20mm (everything else).

If the overhang exists then I am in breach of my planning permission and
will have to reduce it.Â* But whether or not it does exist, and if so by
how much. depends on the *exact* location of the boundary line, so that
is what has to be determined.

Bert

The daft thing is that when my neighbours planned a further extension
set back 6" from the boundary, 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!

SteveW

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. And did they do it? 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

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

On 20/04/2018 15:42, Bert Coules wrote:
Robin wrote:

Depends who you mean by "they".

I was about to make that very point.Â* I accept that I'm in breach of the
planning permission and am taking steps to rectify it in exactly the
manner requested by the planners.Â* Assuming that I can successfully do
that, there will be no reason for the council to take any action against
me.

They would be in their rights to do so of course if I didn't carry out
the remedial work, but unless there's a problem with the neighbours over
getting it done I don't anticipate that happening.

FWLIW I agree

I can't immediately think of any reason strong enough for the neighbours
to want to take the matter to court.Â* But anything's possible I suppose.


Again, FWLIW I agree - assuming you get the work done. If not, the main
question for them is "what might this mean for selling our house?" I
don't know the answer. But in their shoes I'd be inclined to err on the
side of caution and at least drop a few hundred on a surveyor's report.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 20/04/2018 11:37, newshound wrote:

There was a case near where I lived in Bristol many years ago where
someone had PP to rebuild a workshop adjacent to a back garden, one of
the conditions being that the roof height would not change.

Same conditions imposed for a block of flats built at the bottom of my
road. All adjoining property had pitched roofs, the block of flats had a
flat roof level with the ridge tiles of the adjoining properties
allowing the developer to have an extra storey of flats.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Robin said:

Again, FWLIW I agree - assuming you get the work done.

Barring unforeseen problems, this is going to happen.

If not, the main question for them is "what might this mean
for selling our house?"

I'm very out of touch with buying and selling property these days. Does
anyone know if it's obligatory now to disclose to any potential buyer that
there had been a boundary-breaching conflict in the past, even if it had
been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties and the planning
department?










I
don't know the answer. But in their shoes I'd be inclined to err on the
side of caution and at least drop a few hundred on a surveyor's report.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Steve Walker wrote:

I'd certainly have no problem buying a house where the neighbours'
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.

You wouldn't care make my neighbours a very generous offer, would you? It's
a lovely area, this.

Seriously, your attitude in reassuring. Thanks.

"... *is* reassuring." I can't write proper today. Apologies.