Have looked all over the www for info on this one without success.

Situation is this. Neighbour's existing extension (two storey, flat
roof) is built right up to my boundary (bottom of my garden, side of
his property). Fine so far. Neighbour has applied for a loft
extension which will see his hipped (pitched) roof extended over his
(flat roof) extension. Fine up to a point, as a hipped roof is
visually more attractive. However, because the existing wall is built
right on the boundary, the soffits, eaves and guttering of the extended
hipped roof will project into my airspace.

Spoke to the planning officer handling the application, wondering if
they had overlooked the fact that my airspace was to be invaded. Was
told that this is not a planning consideration. Any objection to the
application on these grounds would not be considered.

Was told further that this is a matter between me and my neighbour to
sort out -if the neighbour goes ahead and builds in accordance with the
planning permission granted by the council, I have to take legal action
against him.

Can this be correct?? My neighbour needs to observe the requirements
of the Party Wall Act, but how can the planning people approve such a
thing in the first place? (All the more extraordinary since a couple
of years ago when I built my own extension, I was required to set it
back from my boundary so that the eaves and guttering did not project
over the pavement!)

Any and all input from your fine brains would be appreciated.

HS

"HS" wrote:

Have looked all over the www for info on this one without success.

Can't help, but the Boundary Problems website is good for this sort of
problem. Link on my webpage
URL:http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/quickhelp/property.htm

Daytona

HS wrote:
Have looked all over the www for info on this one without success.

Situation is this. Neighbour's existing extension (two storey, flat
roof) is built right up to my boundary (bottom of my garden, side of
his property). Fine so far. Neighbour has applied for a loft
extension which will see his hipped (pitched) roof extended over his
(flat roof) extension. Fine up to a point, as a hipped roof is
visually more attractive. However, because the existing wall is built
right on the boundary, the soffits, eaves and guttering of the extended
hipped roof will project into my airspace.

Spoke to the planning officer handling the application, wondering if
they had overlooked the fact that my airspace was to be invaded. Was
told that this is not a planning consideration. Any objection to the
application on these grounds would not be considered.

Was told further that this is a matter between me and my neighbour to
sort out -if the neighbour goes ahead and builds in accordance with the
planning permission granted by the council, I have to take legal action
against him.

Can this be correct?? My neighbour needs to observe the requirements
of the Party Wall Act, but how can the planning people approve such a
thing in the first place? (All the more extraordinary since a couple
of years ago when I built my own extension, I was required to set it
back from my boundary so that the eaves and guttering did not project
over the pavement!)

Any and all input from your fine brains would be appreciated.

HS

Well, this happened to a good friend of mine who was the person having
the new extension built.
When the potential intrusion was pointed out, he had to have the
building put on hold while the plans were altered to keep the extension
wholly within his boundary. Cost a packet.
Why can't the roof of the extension be set back enough so everything is
on his side?
If the neighbour won't play ball you could threaten to apply for
permission to build right up to your side of the boundary which would
block his new soffit etc.
The other problem for him is if it does spread over your side, he will
have to ask for access to clear any blocked gutters etc While this
cannot reasonably be refused, a lot a damage could be caused by
rainwater until it is convienent for you to allow access :-)

Your BCO was wrong
Your neighbour can only build on his side of the boundary and for technical
purposes the boundary goes vertically down and up form the ground. The
foundations have to be on his property so does any overhang, gutters, tiles,
window catches etc. You need to go backto your BCO and check the plans of
your neighbour's extension then talk to the BCO.

Mike Taylor wrote:
Your BCO was wrong
Your neighbour can only build on his side of the boundary and for technical
purposes the boundary goes vertically down and up form the ground. The
foundations have to be on his property so does any overhang, gutters, tiles,
window catches etc. You need to go backto your BCO and check the plans of
your neighbour's extension then talk to the BCO.

I agree entirely; but surely this is a Planning issue, nothing to do
with Building Control?

David

HS posted
Have looked all over the www for info on this one without success.

Situation is this. Neighbour's existing extension (two storey, flat
roof) is built right up to my boundary (bottom of my garden, side of
his property). Fine so far. Neighbour has applied for a loft
extension which will see his hipped (pitched) roof extended over his
(flat roof) extension. Fine up to a point, as a hipped roof is
visually more attractive. However, because the existing wall is built
right on the boundary, the soffits, eaves and guttering of the extended
hipped roof will project into my airspace.

Spoke to the planning officer handling the application, wondering if
they had overlooked the fact that my airspace was to be invaded. Was
told that this is not a planning consideration. Any objection to the
application on these grounds would not be considered.

This is true. While it sounds odd, the reasoning is as follows: You
think (rightly) that your neighbour can't do this without your
permission, because it's your land. But actually it often happens that
people apply for planning permission related to land that isn't theirs.
The most common example is when a developer wants to buy land to build
on, but won't do it unless he knows he can get planning permission: so
he has to apply for then permission *before* he buys the land.

So from the planning officer's POV, ownership of land is irrelevant. All
they are required to do is look at the *planning* (ie public interest)
aspects of the building.



Was told further that this is a matter between me and my neighbour to
sort out -if the neighbour goes ahead and builds in accordance with the
planning permission granted by the council, I have to take legal action
against him.

Right. But that would be messy. If you really don't object too much to
his plans, one solution is to say to your neighbour, "This is my land,
you don't have the right to build this, and I'll sue you if you do it
without permission. However, if you agree to pay me X thousand pounds in
advance, and Y hundred pounds a year afterwards, then I'll grant you
rights to do it."

--
PeteM

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:01:59 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

Mike Taylor wrote:
Your BCO was wrong
Your neighbour can only build on his side of the boundary and for technical
purposes the boundary goes vertically down and up form the ground. The
foundations have to be on his property so does any overhang, gutters, tiles,
window catches etc. You need to go backto your BCO and check the plans of
your neighbour's extension then talk to the BCO.

I agree entirely; but surely this is a Planning issue, nothing to do
with Building Control?

It is a 'trespass' issue which you have to handle yourself and may
also be a planning issue in that planning consent may be required for
the encroaching extensions and depending on planning laws, the Council
may not be permitted to give consent for such a trespassing item
unless the other owner agrees. Hence you may be able to get the
council to deny the consent. However you may also need to take action
yourself.

The property owner owns the air space and the space underneath the
ground, although many laws allow ocupancy by others e.g. aeroplanes
flying over. A neighbour also has temporary access rights (AFAIK) for
boundary wall maintenance. There may also be 'party wall' agreements
which should be part of title deeds.

Having said that, if your neighbour encroaches on your air space he is
potentially in big trouble, especially if he has been warned. Your
remedy is to require the encroachments to be removed. If there has
been an encroachment for decades (especially where both properties
have changed hands in the meantime), it may be that as a matter of
Equity - a Court may adjust the boundary.

The first thing to do is to advise the neighbour in writing that you
consider his extensions will encroach and hence be a trespass - send
by registered mail or personally deliver it (with a friend). Ask for
an acknowledgement that there will be no encroachment.

If no acknowledgement, bite the bullet on money and get a solicitor to
send a similar letter - it will be money well worth spent. I won't
mention the next stage, I doubt it will be necessary.

"Mike Taylor" wrote in
message ...
Your BCO was wrong
Your neighbour can only build on his side of the boundary and for
technical
purposes the boundary goes vertically down and up form the ground. The
foundations have to be on his property so does any overhang, gutters,
tiles,
window catches etc. You need to go backto your BCO and check the plans of
your neighbour's extension then talk to the BCO.


AIUI - the Party Wall Act allows part of the footings to be on the
neighbours property in order to build a wall upto the boundary

Regards Jeff

PeteM wrote:


So from the planning officer's POV, ownership of land is irrelevant. All
they are required to do is look at the *planning* (ie public interest)
aspects of the building.

If this is true, and I am not disputing it, why has a chap I know had
his planning permission refused three times by Stretford because of
possible encroachment onto his neighbours land? Finally he had to get a
boundary surveyor in to mark the boundaries.

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
If this is true, and I am not disputing it, why has a chap I know had
his planning permission refused three times by Stretford because of
possible encroachment onto his neighbours land? Finally he had to get a
boundary surveyor in to mark the boundaries.

I am in the process of building up to the boundary and was told by the
planning officer that the gutters etc could not overhang the boundary, there
are some round here that are built with a wall higher than the gutter height
so you end up with a valley where you gutter should be. ( there has got to
be a name for this ? )

Regards Jeff

"HS" wrote in message
oups.com...
Have looked all over the www for info on this one without success.

Situation is this. Neighbour's existing extension (two storey, flat
roof) is built right up to my boundary (bottom of my garden, side of
his property). Fine so far. Neighbour has applied for a loft
extension which will see his hipped (pitched) roof extended over his
(flat roof) extension. Fine up to a point, as a hipped roof is
visually more attractive. However, because the existing wall is built
right on the boundary, the soffits, eaves and guttering of the extended
hipped roof will project into my airspace.

Spoke to the planning officer handling the application, wondering if
they had overlooked the fact that my airspace was to be invaded. Was
told that this is not a planning consideration. Any objection to the
application on these grounds would not be considered.

Was told further that this is a matter between me and my neighbour to
sort out -if the neighbour goes ahead and builds in accordance with the
planning permission granted by the council, I have to take legal action
against him.

Can this be correct?? My neighbour needs to observe the requirements
of the Party Wall Act, but how can the planning people approve such a
thing in the first place? (All the more extraordinary since a couple
of years ago when I built my own extension, I was required to set it
back from my boundary so that the eaves and guttering did not project
over the pavement!)

Any and all input from your fine brains would be appreciated.

A few eves hanging over your property by a few inches and the likes way high
up does not affect you in any way. In fact, if it is done properly it would
make the pace look good. Ever tried being a decent neighbour.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Old Bill" wrote in message
...
HS wrote:
Have looked all over the www for info on this one without success.

Situation is this. Neighbour's existing extension (two storey, flat
roof) is built right up to my boundary (bottom of my garden, side of
his property). Fine so far. Neighbour has applied for a loft
extension which will see his hipped (pitched) roof extended over his
(flat roof) extension. Fine up to a point, as a hipped roof is
visually more attractive. However, because the existing wall is built
right on the boundary, the soffits, eaves and guttering of the extended
hipped roof will project into my airspace.

Spoke to the planning officer handling the application, wondering if
they had overlooked the fact that my airspace was to be invaded. Was
told that this is not a planning consideration. Any objection to the
application on these grounds would not be considered.

Was told further that this is a matter between me and my neighbour to
sort out -if the neighbour goes ahead and builds in accordance with the
planning permission granted by the council, I have to take legal action
against him.

Can this be correct?? My neighbour needs to observe the requirements
of the Party Wall Act, but how can the planning people approve such a
thing in the first place? (All the more extraordinary since a couple
of years ago when I built my own extension, I was required to set it
back from my boundary so that the eaves and guttering did not project
over the pavement!)

Any and all input from your fine brains would be appreciated.

HS

Well, this happened to a good friend of mine who was the person having
the new extension built.
When the potential intrusion was pointed out, he had to have the
building put on hold while the plans were altered to keep the extension
wholly within his boundary. Cost a packet.
Why can't the roof of the extension be set back enough so everything is
on his side?
If the neighbour won't play ball you could threaten to apply for
permission to build right up to your side of the boundary which would
block his new soffit etc.
The other problem for him is if it does spread over your side, he will
have to ask for access to clear any blocked gutters etc While this
cannot reasonably be refused, a lot a damage could be caused by
rainwater until it is convienent for you to allow access :-)

And the side of his wall is heavily stained and you are the only one who
looks at it, as it is out of view of him. Being a good civilised neighbour
helps for all parties


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"PeteM" wrote in message
...
HS posted
Have looked all over the www for info on this one without success.

Situation is this. Neighbour's existing extension (two storey, flat
roof) is built right up to my boundary (bottom of my garden, side of
his property). Fine so far. Neighbour has applied for a loft
extension which will see his hipped (pitched) roof extended over his
(flat roof) extension. Fine up to a point, as a hipped roof is
visually more attractive. However, because the existing wall is built
right on the boundary, the soffits, eaves and guttering of the extended
hipped roof will project into my airspace.

Spoke to the planning officer handling the application, wondering if
they had overlooked the fact that my airspace was to be invaded. Was
told that this is not a planning consideration. Any objection to the
application on these grounds would not be considered.

This is true. While it sounds odd, the reasoning is as follows: You
think (rightly) that your neighbour can't do this without your
permission, because it's your land. But actually it often happens that
people apply for planning permission related to land that isn't theirs.
The most common example is when a developer wants to buy land to build
on, but won't do it unless he knows he can get planning permission: so
he has to apply for then permission *before* he buys the land.

So from the planning officer's POV, ownership of land is irrelevant. All
they are required to do is look at the *planning* (ie public interest)
aspects of the building.



Was told further that this is a matter between me and my neighbour to
sort out -if the neighbour goes ahead and builds in accordance with the
planning permission granted by the council, I have to take legal action
against him.

Right. But that would be messy. If you really don't object too much to
his plans, one solution is to say to your neighbour, "This is my land,
you don't have the right to build this, and I'll sue you if you do it
without permission. However, if you agree to pay me X thousand pounds in
advance, and Y hundred pounds a year afterwards, then I'll grant you
rights to do it."

If the overhangs are ugly and obtrusive, you could knock them down as they
are being built and give the materials back to him. It should not come to
this as a talk with the neighbour will bring up good results usually. If
you think it is ugly, get him to put nice soffits, barge boards, etc.




_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:31:32 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named "Mike
Taylor" randomly hit
the keyboard and produced:

Your BCO was wrong
Your neighbour can only build on his side of the boundary and for technical
purposes the boundary goes vertically down and up form the ground. The
foundations have to be on his property so does any overhang, gutters, tiles,
window catches etc. You need to go backto your BCO and check the plans of
your neighbour's extension then talk to the BCO.

Two points:

1. The OP only talked about Planning, not Building Control.

2. There is no such prohibition in the Building Regulations about
building over boundaries. There are requirements relating to fire
spread and combustible materials on or near the boundaries, but it's
not for the BCO to determine where they are. IANAL, but AFAIK any
matters of trespass, etc., are civil matters.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 11:56:41 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named
"Jeff" randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

I am in the process of building up to the boundary and was told by the
planning officer that the gutters etc could not overhang the boundary, there
are some round here that are built with a wall higher than the gutter height
so you end up with a valley where you gutter should be. ( there has got to
be a name for this ? )

Parapet.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

"Hugo Nebula" abuse@localhost wrote in message
news
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:31:32 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named "Mike
Taylor" randomly hit
the keyboard and produced:

Your BCO was wrong
Your neighbour can only build on his side of the boundary and for
technical
purposes the boundary goes vertically down and up form the ground. The
foundations have to be on his property so does any overhang, gutters,
tiles,
window catches etc. You need to go backto your BCO and check the plans of
your neighbour's extension then talk to the BCO.

Two points:

1. The OP only talked about Planning, not Building Control.

2. There is no such prohibition in the Building Regulations about
building over boundaries. There are requirements relating to fire
spread and combustible materials on or near the boundaries, but it's
not for the BCO to determine where they are. IANAL, but AFAIK any
matters of trespass, etc., are civil matters.

So, if the intrusion is ugly, out of character, etc, you just knock it down
as it is being built over the property line and give them the materials
back. They will soon change their tack.





_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Hugo Nebula" abuse@localhost wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 11:56:41 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named
"Jeff" randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

I am in the process of building up to the boundary and was told by the
planning officer that the gutters etc could not overhang the boundary,
there
are some round here that are built with a wall higher than the gutter
height
so you end up with a valley where you gutter should be. ( there has got
to
be a name for this ? )

Parapet.

A house that has an end gable wall higher than the roof and follows the
pitched roof line and is higher by about 6 inches all around, looks good.
Some railway cottages had this sort of arrangement..



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Doctor Evil wrote:

A few eves hanging over your property by a few inches and the likes
way high
up does not affect you in any way. In fact, if it is done properly
it would
make the pace look good. Ever tried being a decent neighbour.


I don't entirely disagree with you, although the overhang will be about
twenty inches and you have incorrectly presumed that I have a problem
with my neighbour. On the contrary...

However I am concerned firstly with the principle that the Planning
authorities can seemingly permit a structure which could give rise to
future legal actions between the applicant and his neighbours.
Secondly I am thinking of the (distant?) future when the planning rules
may permit development of a building abutting on to the neighbour's
property - what happens then?

By the way thank you, one and all, for your valid contributions - most
interesting and useful.

HS

In uk.d-i-y wrote:
Doctor Evil wrote:

A few eves hanging over your property by a few inches and the likes
way high
up does not affect you in any way. In fact, if it is done properly
it would
make the pace look good. Ever tried being a decent neighbour.


I don't entirely disagree with you, although the overhang will be about
twenty inches and you have incorrectly presumed that I have a problem
with my neighbour. On the contrary...

However I am concerned firstly with the principle that the Planning
authorities can seemingly permit a structure which could give rise to
future legal actions between the applicant and his neighbours.
Secondly I am thinking of the (distant?) future when the planning rules
may permit development of a building abutting on to the neighbour's
property - what happens then?

"I agree to pay X the sum of one pound a year, for the right to construct
a portion of a roof overhanging Xs property, as shown in diagrams A,B,C
Any subsequent modifications to the structure will not exceed indicated
lines on the diagrams, or X is entitled to remove either any violating
portions, or the structure as a whole up to the property line, at my
cost."

?

wrote:
Doctor Evil wrote:

A few eves hanging over your property by a few inches and the likes

way high

up does not affect you in any way. In fact, if it is done properly

it would

make the pace look good. Ever tried being a decent neighbour.



I don't entirely disagree with you, although the overhang will be about
twenty inches and you have incorrectly presumed that I have a problem
with my neighbour. On the contrary...

However I am concerned firstly with the principle that the Planning
authorities can seemingly permit a structure which could give rise to
future legal actions between the applicant and his neighbours.
Secondly I am thinking of the (distant?) future when the planning rules
may permit development of a building abutting on to the neighbour's
property - what happens then?

By the way thank you, one and all, for your valid contributions - most
interesting and useful.

HS

The other, possibly major problem will be if you come to sell the house.
Friendly arrangements are all well and good while the friends remain
a) Friendly.
b) Next door neighbours.
I have certainly seen major problems in cases such as this. It cost my
son in law a lot of money and agro to sort one out. Even now after
settlement there is a nasty taste remaining.

--
Please do not email me at
All emails to that address are automatically
deleted before opening.

The planning authority is not responsible. They are concerned with the
acceptability in planning terms without considering the legal questions
such as you have. Your remedy is solely against your neighbour. As others
have said you need to consider the implication of the Party Wall Act and the
question of trespass if the building will overhang your property.

Peter Crosland

Any planning application has to include a plan with a red line shown
around the land in the applicant's control - ie, usually ownership. If
the applicant does not own it, they have to serve notice to the actual
owner(s) of the land in question under a section of the Town and
Country Planning Act (1990). A recent case proves that any consent
granted without this notice being served is void. It may be, some
planning authorities do not worry too much over such detail. As far as
I understand matters, they should be concerned over the legal points.

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:57:39 GMT, (Peter)
wrote:

snip

There is a very good reason the neighbour should not build such a
'trespassing' extension. It can come back and bite when he comes to
sell the property. The purchaser or his mortgage company could well
throw a spanner into the works at a most awkward time if this is
discovered as it is likely to be.

Even if you decide to agree to it, it must be properly set up on a
legal basis and you need your own solicitor to assist - it is quite
reasonable for the other party to meet his fees. Do not rely on his
solicitor to handle both ends - there is a conflict of interest with
this.

This gives you a valid reason to discuss it with the neighbour in such
a way as to do least damage to relationships.

On 5 Mar 2005 15:23:48 -0800, "4square"
wrote:

Any planning application has to include a plan with a red line shown
around the land in the applicant's control - ie, usually ownership. If
the applicant does not own it, they have to serve notice to the actual
owner(s) of the land in question under a section of the Town and
Country Planning Act (1990). A recent case proves that any consent
granted without this notice being served is void. It may be, some
planning authorities do not worry too much over such detail. As far as
I understand matters, they should be concerned over the legal points.

Hi 4square,

You quite correct that some authorities do not worry too much about
this detail. My local authority gave planning permission to my
negihbour that would have resulted in him building 5 foot inside my
boundary.

Regards

nemo2

Broadback posted
PeteM wrote:


So from the planning officer's POV, ownership of land is irrelevant. All
they are required to do is look at the *planning* (ie public interest)
aspects of the building.

If this is true, and I am not disputing it, why has a chap I know had
his planning permission refused three times by Stretford because of
possible encroachment onto his neighbours land? Finally he had to get a
boundary surveyor in to mark the boundaries.


Was the adjoining owner a councillor by any chance?

--
PeteM

4square posted
Any planning application has to include a plan with a red line shown
around the land in the applicant's control - ie, usually ownership. If
the applicant does not own it, they have to serve notice to the actual
owner(s) of the land in question under a section of the Town and
Country Planning Act (1990). A recent case proves that any consent
granted without this notice being served is void.

Excellent - what case?


--
PeteM

On 4 Mar 2005 11:11:49 -0800, "HS" wrote:

Any and all input from your fine brains would be appreciated.


If you want to cause trouble then you could try a flag pole, on the
boundary line (with the top at a height to interfere with where the
gutter is proposed).

However, it may be better to settle this properly and without discord.

Chris.

On 4 Mar 2005 11:11:49 -0800, "HS" wrote:

Have looked all over the www for info on this one without success.

Situation is this. Neighbour's existing extension (two storey, flat
roof) is built right up to my boundary (bottom of my garden, side of
his property). Fine so far. Neighbour has applied for a loft
extension which will see his hipped (pitched) roof extended over his
(flat roof) extension. Fine up to a point, as a hipped roof is
visually more attractive. However, because the existing wall is built
right on the boundary, the soffits, eaves and guttering of the extended
hipped roof will project into my airspace.

Spoke to the planning officer handling the application, wondering if
they had overlooked the fact that my airspace was to be invaded. Was
told that this is not a planning consideration. Any objection to the
application on these grounds would not be considered.

Was told further that this is a matter between me and my neighbour to
sort out -if the neighbour goes ahead and builds in accordance with the
planning permission granted by the council, I have to take legal action
against him.

Can this be correct?? My neighbour needs to observe the requirements
of the Party Wall Act, but how can the planning people approve such a
thing in the first place? (All the more extraordinary since a couple
of years ago when I built my own extension, I was required to set it
back from my boundary so that the eaves and guttering did not project
over the pavement!)

Any and all input from your fine brains would be appreciated.

HS

HS,

One word of warning, an ex-neighbour of mine built right up to the
boundary and then engineered a boundary dispute to try and gain land
so that he had access all round his building.

In the end, the case only went to court to settle costs as he dropped
his case when the Expert Witness finally provided his report 2 days
before the case was due to go to court. We were awarded 100% of our
costs by the court (our barister couldn't believe that we got 100%
costs), but it still cost us in the region of £10,000 taking things
that you cannot claim like lost holidays etc.

Fortunately, most people are like by ex-neighbour who incidently was a
property developer, but take care.

regards

nemo2

On 4 Mar 2005 11:11:49 -0800, "HS" wrote:

Have looked all over the www for info on this one without success.

Situation is this. Neighbour's existing extension (two storey, flat
roof) is built right up to my boundary (bottom of my garden, side of
his property). Fine so far. Neighbour has applied for a loft
extension which will see his hipped (pitched) roof extended over his
(flat roof) extension. Fine up to a point, as a hipped roof is
visually more attractive. However, because the existing wall is built
right on the boundary, the soffits, eaves and guttering of the extended
hipped roof will project into my airspace.

Spoke to the planning officer handling the application, wondering if
they had overlooked the fact that my airspace was to be invaded. Was
told that this is not a planning consideration. Any objection to the
application on these grounds would not be considered.

Was told further that this is a matter between me and my neighbour to
sort out -if the neighbour goes ahead and builds in accordance with the
planning permission granted by the council, I have to take legal action
against him.

Can this be correct?? My neighbour needs to observe the requirements
of the Party Wall Act, but how can the planning people approve such a
thing in the first place? (All the more extraordinary since a couple
of years ago when I built my own extension, I was required to set it
back from my boundary so that the eaves and guttering did not project
over the pavement!)

Any and all input from your fine brains would be appreciated.

HS

I'd offer to sell him some land, and put a good price on it, say 100K
or so .......

I can't see it being the planning depts problem, its not there job to
check who owns the land the building is intended to go on.

What I'd really do is talk to my neighbour, and if not satified, take
up one or two fress consultations with solicitors, and then make a
decision.

Rick

Thank you all for your input. I think I have obtained a better
understanding of the issues involved, and for those of you are
interested, the following is a summary.

The simple answer lies in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In
fact the application form is quite clear on the subject (although the
Planning Officer didn't advise me about this). The form contains a
certificate of ownership under Section 66 of the TCPA. If the
applicant is unable to certify (Certificate A) that "the development
does not encroach onto neighbouring land or property (including
footings, gutters, etc)", then he has to certify (Certificate B) that
he has given notice to everyone who owns any part of the land to which
the application relates. Well in my case, the applicant ticked
Certificate A which was incorrect - he should have ticked Certificate
B, having previously advised his neighbours that his proposed
development would encroach on their land. It is only after he has
served notice to his neighbours that they can consent or not to the
proposed development, and as some of you have said this is a civil
matter between neighbours - the negotiations can then start.

So my Planning Officer was not entirely correct to tell me that the
encroachment is not a planning consideration - he should have picked
this up and should not be proceeding with the application until it is
sorted out. Maybe he would have picked this up on his site visit, but
that will normally occur after the deadline for all objections has
passed.

HS

In article . com,
" says...
Thank you all for your input. I think I have obtained a better
understanding of the issues involved, and for those of you are
interested, the following is a summary.

The simple answer lies in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In
fact the application form is quite clear on the subject (although the
Planning Officer didn't advise me about this). The form contains a
certificate of ownership under Section 66 of the TCPA. If the
applicant is unable to certify (Certificate A) that "the development
does not encroach onto neighbouring land or property (including
footings, gutters, etc)", then he has to certify (Certificate B) that
he has given notice to everyone who owns any part of the land to which
the application relates. Well in my case, the applicant ticked
Certificate A which was incorrect - he should have ticked Certificate
B, having previously advised his neighbours that his proposed
development would encroach on their land. It is only after he has
served notice to his neighbours that they can consent or not to the
proposed development, and as some of you have said this is a civil
matter between neighbours - the negotiations can then start.

So my Planning Officer was not entirely correct to tell me that the
encroachment is not a planning consideration - he should have picked
this up and should not be proceeding with the application until it is
sorted out. Maybe he would have picked this up on his site visit, but
that will normally occur after the deadline for all objections has
passed.

But if the application contains untruths wouldn't that invalidate its
approval?

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 21:16:52 -0000, Rob Morley
wrote:

But if the application contains untruths wouldn't that invalidate its
approval?
Yes, with respect to the encroaching pieces.

However even if a neighbour does not object to such an encroachment
for the purposes of the application, it does not give applicant an
interest in the neighbour's land with respect to the encroachments.

The key point here is that the 'neighbour' effectively wants the
Council to carry out his 'dirty work' in order to retain good
neighbourly relations (this being a very important and noble
objective) and avoid paying legal fees, and the Act quite sensibly
mandates such an approach.

Not living in UK I was unaware of whether the UK Act had such a
provision - the equivalent where I am also has a similar requirement.

In article , Rob
Morley wrote:
But if the application contains untruths wouldn't that
invalidate its approval?

Not necessarily: there are a number of law cases on this issue
that come to different conclusions depending on whether it is
blatant fraud or just an error. The best one is one where the
applicant claimed to be the agent for the owner, got the PP and
bought the land cheaply (the owner not knowing it had PP of
course). The court held that the permission was valid but as he
had held himself out to be agent for the original owner he must
account to them for all the profit he had made!

The fact that you have permission does not, of course, give you
any rights over land that is not yours and does not override any
covenants or other legal obligations that may be relevant.

--
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

Perhaps the OP could consider applying to build a mirror image extension to
his neighbour so that they meet and it becomes a semi-detached (ir terrace
if already a semi). The resulting loss in value will probably outweigh the
gain from the extension and should make his neighbour see sense.