Neighbour changes use of garage and then complains about noise

Icey77

AdrianC wrote: »

"Penalised"...? He gets to live in the bigger, better place that he wants to live in... Might be for a year, might be for thirty or more. Without having to pay the appropriate CT.



Quite. And the buyer doesn't know what CT band he'll be paying until after he's bought the place, because the re-assessment is triggered by the change of occupier on the CT bill.

I can only show you what I found, it seems reasonable to me.

http://www.voa.gov.uk/corporate/CouncilTax/increasesFollowingImprovements.html

lincroft1710

Icey77 wrote: »

I believe it's so that the current owner who has spent money altering his house is not penalised for improving it.

This is correct. Parliament's intention was that people weren't deterred from making improvements to their houses.

Yorkie1

clingingtothewreckage wrote: »

I hope the following is of some practical help.

1. The changing of the garage to living acommodation may or may not need Planning Permission because of restrictions in your deeds specifying that any such changes need PP.

Where it applies to garages it is to protect the number of parking spaces etc. with the property.


Therefore I suggest you check your own deeds for clarification. If these are not available telephone your local Council office because they will know.

If PP was necessary and obtained I am surprised that your Council did not write to you to see if you had any observations to make on the proposal.

2. Building Regulations - would have been needed. Therefore again contact your Council - do this as soon as possible because I believe they won't be interested if the work is over 6 months old.

3. If you were using power tools/repairing the car/making excessive noise in the middle of the night or for hours and hours you may be guilty of causing a noise nuisance to your neighbour but this has nothing to do with the conversion as the noise would be heard everywhere in their home.

If you find out the answers from your Council you will be better equiped to decide what you should do. For what it is worth I would not insulate my garage, based on the information provided I do not think that he has BR and/or PP which are actually in place to protect people.

Hope this helps

Ref the highlighted bit.

Planning permission is not related to covenants in deeds. It relates to the nature of the change of use and is consistent through statutory regulations, guidance etc.

Covenants in deeds are something different. They say that something cannot occur unless specific permission from a particular person or entity (e.g. neighbour, developer) is obtained. Sometimes the entity from whom permission should be obtained is the council, but that does not equate to needing to obtain PP. Instead, you are obtaining permission relating to the prospective breach of restrictive covenant.

BobQ

tunnel wrote: »

But the regular use of power tools wasn't an issue before the neighbour decided to "upgrade" his property, why should there be any argument now. It's not the OP's problem the neighbour now takes issue with it.

At first I agreed with the OP and still do to some extent since I think that the neighbour has the obligation to properly convert the living space. We do not know he has not done this.

That said there is no right to cause a noise nuisance by using power tools 24/7. Assuming the OP is not using power tools late at night, or for long periods I do not think the neighbour has an issue. After all he could do the same on driveway.

My point was that if the OP is creating a noise nuisance the neighbour may have a case, particularly if he has done the conversion correctly

BobQ

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Whilst I follow the gist of your comment, that instantly had me thinking "Was the house wall shared between myself and my next door neighbour each side a cavity wall one back in my last house (ie a Victorian terrace house)?" and the answer is that it wasn't. Those walls functioned perfectly well without being cavity walls and I am guessing the neighbour realises that many terrace houses are like that and is thinking "Well, if they work okay, then why would I need to do a sort of cavity wall set-up in my garage?". If I were converting a garage into a living room, then I would tend to feel the party wall was quite thick enough anyway and, by the time I had taken into account that I would get marginally less space in my conversion if I did that..then I would be seriously weighing-up whether to do that myself.

Actually though, I would expect that the noise of power tools would come through cavity walls, as well as non-cavity walls. In which case, that would be another reason not to bother to do cavity walls, but just go ahead and convert without that and "wait it out" for OP to move on one way or another or stop using his garage as a workshop.

Building regulations may require a cavity wall to ensure that the living space has the same energy conservation properties as the rest of the house. Equally it may require roof insulation and an independent floor. All of these measures would reduce the space but could be used to insulate the living space thermally or acoustically. So it does not matter what you would have done, what matters is what were the building regulations applicable to the conversion.

Ulfar

BobQ wrote: »

Building regulations may require a cavity wall to ensure that the living space has the same energy conservation properties as the rest of the house. Equally it may require roof insulation and an independent floor. All of these measures would reduce the space but could be used to insulate the living space thermally or acoustically. So it does not matter what you would have done, what matters is what were the building regulations applicable to the conversion.

It also begs the question what other issues there may be, have they had the wiring put in place, have fire regulations been followed. These are things that could directly effect the OP if there was a fire.

The neighbor sounds like they have done a bodged job and not followed the rules, why should the OP or anyone else have any sympathy for the situation they have put themselves in.

BobQ

AdrianC wrote: »

"Penalised"...? He gets to live in the bigger, better place that he wants to live in... Might be for a year, might be for thirty or more. Without having to pay the appropriate CT.



Quite. And the buyer doesn't know what CT band he'll be paying until after he's bought the place, because the re-assessment is triggered by the change of occupier on the CT bill.

You have to differentiate between what you think and the real world. It is not a change of occupier that triggers the review of CT band it is the sale of the property. Assuming the buyer asks sensible questions a Band B property that has had a single storey extension built is not going to more than one band higher is it?

Johnandabby

BobQ wrote: »

Building regulations may require a cavity wall to ensure that the living space has the same energy conservation properties as the rest of the house. Equally it may require roof insulation and an independent floor. All of these measures would reduce the space but could be used to insulate the living space thermally or acoustically. So it does not matter what you would have done, what matters is what were the building regulations applicable to the conversion.

While I agree with most of this, internal insulation (insulation between studs, with plasterboard finish) would provide the same insulation standards as cavity wall insulation, so a cavity wall would not be required for energy conservation purposes.

BobQ

Johnandabby wrote: »

While I agree with most of this, internal insulation (insulation between studs, with plasterboard finish) would provide the same insulation standards as cavity wall insulation, so a cavity wall would not be required for energy conservation purposes.

You may be right, but my point is that the neighbour should have complied with the Building Regulations whatever they are.

Johnandabby

BobQ wrote: »

You may be right, but my point is that the neighbour should have complied with the Building Regulations whatever they are.

Absolutely