Hi,
As I understand it from a previous thread a week or so back, it is
permissable to build a garage extension right up to the boundary between
neighbouring properties and the foundations can actually cross over.
The idea being to eliminate unsightly gaps between extensions built side
by side. If this is the case, what happens when the second person to
build then wants to build up to the boundary too? Does his wall bear on
those original foundations? If so, what happens if those foundations
are only suitable for a single story and the second person wants to
build higher? (I may be in a similar situation sometime. The original
thread fizzled out.)

Rockydell

As I understand it from a previous thread a week or so back, it is
permissable to build a garage extension right up to the boundary between
neighbouring properties and the foundations can actually cross over.
The idea being to eliminate unsightly gaps between extensions built side
by side. If this is the case, what happens when the second person to
build then wants to build up to the boundary too? Does his wall bear on
those original foundations? If so, what happens if those foundations
are only suitable for a single story and the second person wants to
build higher? (I may be in a similar situation sometime. The original
thread fizzled out.)


I did not see the original thread but it certainly is NOT acceptable without
permission, preferably by altering the deeds, and in many cases building
regs and/or planning would prevent it. If you want to build right up the
boundary where there is another wall the sensible thing to do is agree this
with the neighbour and plan ahead.

Does his wall bear on those original foundations? If so, what happens
if those foundations are only suitable for a single story and the
second person wants to build higher?

I don't know about the legal aspects and what is allowed and who pays for
what. However, from a technical point of view, the original foundation would
need underpinning and extending to allow the extra weight.

Christian.

Peter Crosland wrote:
As I understand it from a previous thread a week or so back, it is
permissable to build a garage extension right up to the boundary
between neighbouring properties and the foundations can actually
cross over.
The idea being to eliminate unsightly gaps between extensions built
side by side. If this is the case, what happens when the second
person to build then wants to build up to the boundary too? Does his
wall bear on those original foundations? If so, what happens if
those foundations
are only suitable for a single story and the second person wants to
build higher? (I may be in a similar situation sometime. The
original thread fizzled out.)


I did not see the original thread but it certainly is NOT acceptable
without permission, preferably by altering the deeds, and in many
cases building regs and/or planning would prevent it. If you want to
build right up the boundary where there is another wall the sensible
thing to do is agree this with the neighbour and plan ahead.

Indeed, a friend of mine feel foul of this when the footings for his
extension were being dug.
The neighbour pointed out the pitched roof and gutter of the extension would
be over his garden.
So the plans and footings had to altered and there was significant extra
expense incurred.

The neighbour pointed out the pitched roof and gutter of the extension
would
be over his garden.
So the plans and footings had to altered and there was significant extra
expense incurred.

Yes, it is prudent to ascertain that you own the land before you design and
build!

Christian.

Peter Crosland wrote:
As I understand it from a previous thread a week or so back, it is
permissable to build a garage extension right up to the boundary between
neighbouring properties and the foundations can actually cross over.
The idea being to eliminate unsightly gaps between extensions built side
by side. If this is the case, what happens when the second person to
build then wants to build up to the boundary too? Does his wall bear on
those original foundations? If so, what happens if those foundations
are only suitable for a single story and the second person wants to
build higher? (I may be in a similar situation sometime. The original
thread fizzled out.)


I did not see the original thread but it certainly is NOT acceptable without
permission, preferably by altering the deeds, and in many cases building
regs and/or planning would prevent it. If you want to build right up the
boundary where there is another wall the sensible thing to do is agree this
with the neighbour and plan ahead.



I think that this is the post the OP was referring to:

http://tinyurl.com/35r54

To quote:

"Boundaries can be a problem but with the new legislation, you can build
right up to the edge and build footings on your neighbours side without
his permission. This is to prevent the stupid 6" gaps appearing between
extensions. He can object and appeal, but will be stopped from
interfering if you are granted permission."

In article , Rockydell wrote:
As I understand it from a previous thread a week or so back, it is
permissable to build a garage extension right up to the boundary
between neighbouring properties and the foundations can actually
cross over.

Preferably not without the express agreement of the adjoining owner,
legalities notwithstanding (when you sell you have to declare whether
you have had disputes with neighbours)

Where extensions to semi-d's were concerned, in my BCO days we used to
suggest to people that they talk to their neighbour and get their
agreement (should be done by a solicitor, but exchange of letters at
least) to build the extension flank wall on the line of the party wall
(i.e straddling the boundary): first owner pays; in return for agreeing
the second user can use the wall if they subsequently decide to extend.
Both get an extra 100mm of internal space and no nasty gap. If you're
doing this with a flat roof, best to extend up as a parapet along the
boundary so owner 2 can do his stuff without disturbing your roof.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Christian McArdle" wrote
The neighbour pointed out the pitched roof and gutter of the extension
would be over his garden.
So the plans and footings had to altered and there was significant extra
expense incurred.

Yes, it is prudent to ascertain that you own the land before you design and
build!

Or air in this case.

Is it a daft question to ask that the boundary extends 'virtually'
upwards from the property line. How far ?

Can I charge BAA for entering the airspace I own above my house ;-)

P.

Zymurgy wrote:

Can I charge BAA for entering the airspace I own above my house ;-)

They've built an airport over your house?.

--
Laurie R

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
As I understand it from a previous thread a week or so back, it is
permissable to build a garage extension right up to the boundary between
neighbouring properties and the foundations can actually cross over.
The idea being to eliminate unsightly gaps between extensions built side
by side. If this is the case, what happens when the second person to
build then wants to build up to the boundary too? Does his wall bear on
those original foundations? If so, what happens if those foundations
are only suitable for a single story and the second person wants to
build higher? (I may be in a similar situation sometime. The original
thread fizzled out.)


I did not see the original thread but it certainly is NOT acceptable without
permission, preferably by altering the deeds, and in many cases building
regs and/or planning would prevent it. If you want to build right up the
boundary where there is another wall the sensible thing to do is agree this
with the neighbour and plan ahead.

I didn't see the original thread either. But footings projecting across a
boundary are indeed permissible under the Party Wall etc Act 1996. Section 1(6)
states: "Where the Building Owner builds a wall wholly on his own land ......he
shall have the right .........to place below the level of the land of the
adjoining owner such projecting footings or foundations as are necessary for the
construction of the wall."

Section 2(2)(g) of the same Act states, "A Building Owner shall have the right
to cut away.....any footing....... or other projection on or over the land of
the Building Owner in order to erect, raise or underpin any such wall or for any
other purpose."

So, in principle you (as the person carrying out the work) have the right to
extend footings over the boundary if it is "necessary", and also to cut off your
neighbour's projecting footings on your land. Each case would be considered on
its merits by the Party Wall Surveyors acting for both sides, but the general
principles are that if you are building against an existing building you are
responsible for maintaining its stability and you must not increase the load on
its foundations. If your proposed foundations involve cutting off a projection
or undermine the existing building then you will probably need to underpin it.
Reinforced concrete foundations are not covered by these Clauses, and the
neighbour's written permission is needed in all cases.

Peter

Zymurgy wrote:

"Christian McArdle" wrote

The neighbour pointed out the pitched roof and gutter of the extension
would be over his garden.
So the plans and footings had to altered and there was significant extra
expense incurred.

Yes, it is prudent to ascertain that you own the land before you design and
build!


Or air in this case.

Is it a daft question to ask that the boundary extends 'virtually'
upwards from the property line. How far ?

Can I charge BAA for entering the airspace I own above my house ;-)

P.


No. The bounday extyends upwards essentially to aircraft level, because
you are allowed to shoot birds that fall intio your land. You are not
allowed to shot aircraft that fly over. IIRC there is a 250ft minimum
altidude on aircaft as well, so that is esentially where 'your property'
stops and 'free airspace' begins, for practical puroses.

It does NO exend downwards: Mineral extraction rights are NOT
automatically granted.

In the sense of overlooking, it doesn't even extend up to the boundary.

You are not allowed to shot aircraft that fly over. IIRC there
is a 250ft minimum altidude on aircaft as well, so that is
esentially where 'your property' stops and 'free airspace'
begins, for practical puroses.

There isn't. There is a 500ft rule in a direct line from any structure rule.
So if you had a farm and were away from any buildings, people, vehicles etc,
the trespass only starts when the wheels touch the ground. However, for a
standard house plot, there is effectively a 500ft minimum fly over height.
Over a congested area (which originally intended to mean towns and cities,
but is now harshly interpreted by the courts to basically mean anything from
a small hamlet upwards), there is a minimum 1500ft height.

However, the 500ft rule is not applied when aircraft are using the space to
take off or land. The 1500ft rule doesn't apply either, provided it is a
licenced aerodrome, which last time I checked the AIP, anything BAA operated
was, not surprisingly!

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:

You are not allowed to shot aircraft that fly over. IIRC there
is a 250ft minimum altidude on aircaft as well, so that is
esentially where 'your property' stops and 'free airspace'
begins, for practical puroses.

There isn't. There is a 500ft rule in a direct line from any structure rule.
So if you had a farm and were away from any buildings, people, vehicles etc,
the trespass only starts when the wheels touch the ground. However, for a
standard house plot, there is effectively a 500ft minimum fly over height.
Over a congested area (which originally intended to mean towns and cities,
but is now harshly interpreted by the courts to basically mean anything from
a small hamlet upwards), there is a minimum 1500ft height.

However, the 500ft rule is not applied when aircraft are using the space to
take off or land. The 1500ft rule doesn't apply either, provided it is a
licenced aerodrome, which last time I checked the AIP, anything BAA operated
was, not surprisingly!


I assume that it doesn't to the RAF either? If it does then the Hercules
pilots at RAF Lyneham need a slap - they fly that low (well under 500ft)
over here sometimes that you can feel the pressure "pulses" from the
props *inside* the house.

Christian.

"Zymurgy" wrote
| Can I charge BAA for entering the airspace I own above my house ;-)

Much better to sort these things out amicably. A friendly note to the pilot
saying "please do not fly here again or I'll let your tyres down" left under
the windscreen wiper should do it.

Owain

"Huge" wrote in message
...
I've had a Chinook come over so low that the guy standing in the side
cargo door waved.

I used to live on a street which was on top of an inland
cliff. The street at the bottom of the cliff was a notorious
drugs hotspot, and it wasn't uncommon to look out of
my bedroom window and look down on the police
helicopter using its searchlight!

Al

Much better to sort these things out amicably. A friendly note to the
pilot saying "please do not fly here again or I'll let your tyres
down" left under the windscreen wiper should do it.

Many planes don't have windscreen wipers.

Christian.

Huge wrote:

Still, the occasional military (and Duxford) stuff is quite
entertaining, unlike the people racking up hours who go round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round.

I know!! Man, tell me about it. It's like they like the look of our
house 'cause it's a nice white marker.

--
Grunff

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:51:46 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Huge wrote:

Still, the occasional military (and Duxford) stuff is quite
entertaining, unlike the people racking up hours who go round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round.

I know!! Man, tell me about it. It's like they like the look of our
house 'cause it's a nice white marker.

You could do a Norwegian modification and create a turf roof. That
should work OK in the Devon climate.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:

You could do a Norwegian modification and create a turf roof. That
should work OK in the Devon climate.

Hmmm... there's a thought. I'd have to mow the roof. What did you do
this weekend? I mowed the roof. Yes, I like that.

--
Grunff

In uk.d-i-y, Huge wrote:

Still, the occasional military (and Duxford) stuff is quite
entertaining, unlike the people racking up hours who go round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round and round and round and round
and round and round and round and round.

Seems like the next weekend d-i-y project for you is clear, Huge: you
need to camoflauge the house, and put up a lightweight similacrum 800
yards away, and move the decoy house another 400 yards each weekend.
Eventually you'll have the weekend wannabe pilots flying out to sea
(and maybe running out of fuel ;-)

Should keep you busy for a few days...

Stefek

Huge wrote:

http://www.eme421.com/gdf35mm.html

Lol! That'd do it.

--
Grunff

"Christian McArdle" wrote
Much better to sort these things out amicably. A friendly note to the
pilot saying "please do not fly here again or I'll let your tyres
down" left under the windscreen wiper should do it.

VVBG

Many planes don't have windscreen wipers.

thwap

Cheers,

Paul.

Stefek Zaba wrote
| Seems like the next weekend d-i-y project for you is clear, Huge:
| you need to camoflauge the house, and put up a lightweight
| similacrum 800 yards away, and move the decoy house another 400
| yards each weekend.
| Eventually you'll have the weekend wannabe pilots flying out to
| sea (and maybe running out of fuel ;-)
| Should keep you busy for a few days...

Should really confuse the council too when they look at the aerial
photographs to spot new building work without planning permission.

Owain

"Zymurgy" wrote
| "Christian McArdle"
| Much better to sort these things out amicably. A friendly note
| to the pilot saying "please do not fly here again or I'll let
| your tyres down" left under the windscreen wiper should do it.
| VVBG
| Many planes don't have windscreen wipers.
| thwap

So what do you think Post-It(tm) Notes were invented for?

Owain

I know!! Man, tell me about it. It's like they like the look of our
house 'cause it's a nice white marker.

Where is your house in relation to the runway? You may find that an
alternative circuit route may be practical that avoids your house. Most
airfields have noise abatement circuit patterns that avoid sensitive areas.
These usually get published so that even visting pilots know which
houses/villages/farms to avoid.

Obviously, if you are right under final approach at 500ft, there's not much
room for manoevure.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:
I know!! Man, tell me about it. It's like they like the look of our
house 'cause it's a nice white marker.


Where is your house in relation to the runway?

About 4 miles away!


You may find that an
alternative circuit route may be practical that avoids your house. Most
airfields have noise abatement circuit patterns that avoid sensitive areas.
These usually get published so that even visting pilots know which
houses/villages/farms to avoid.

But then I wouldn't have anything to moan about :-(
It only happens pccasionally, maybe every 3 weeks or so. But when it
happens, it goes on for what seems like an eternity.

--
Grunff

It only happens pccasionally, maybe every 3 weeks or so. But when
it happens, it goes on for what seems like an eternity.

Odd. Only a total incompetent would do circuit training four miles from the
airfield. Pilots with circuits this wide are likely to be the subject of
intense ridicule if discovered. The ATZ is only 2 nautical miles radius, so
they're actually well outside the airfield's "airspace".

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:

Odd. Only a total incompetent would do circuit training four miles from the
airfield. Pilots with circuits this wide are likely to be the subject of
intense ridicule if discovered. The ATZ is only 2 nautical miles radius, so
they're actually well outside the airfield's "airspace".

There will certainly be ridicule when I hit one of them with my next
generation of spud gun.

--
Grunff

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:40:27 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

It only happens pccasionally, maybe every 3 weeks or so. But when
it happens, it goes on for what seems like an eternity.

Odd. Only a total incompetent would do circuit training four miles from the
airfield. Pilots with circuits this wide are likely to be the subject of
intense ridicule if discovered. The ATZ is only 2 nautical miles radius, so
they're actually well outside the airfield's "airspace".

Christian.


Could be they are being put into a holding pattern

Paul Mc Cann