Neighbour dispute, conversion to residential

patman99

My source was the local Council Planning Officer.

Winter_Phoenix

dragon32 wrote: »

Although he does not live there, it sounds like he will do his very best to be as difficult as he can be.

Does anyone have any advice?

I'm sure this isn't what you want to hear, but my advice would be:

Contact him and say that it's unfortunate that the two of you have got off on the wrong foot, and that you'd like to start again and see if you can get a civilised, neighbourly relationship going between you. (New Year, new beginning and all that.)

With a bit of luck, you will then be in a position to negotiate so that you can both achieve what you want - he replaces the fence panels, you withdraw your planning objections, he moves the Sky dish, you offer to keep an eye on the empty property (or whatever).

IMHO it's almost always worth a major effort to avoid neighbour disputes, as they tend to go on and on for years, with no peace for anyone involved, the potential for police intervention if things get out of hand, the possibility of one party taking the other to court (time-consuming and expensive), and then when you come to sell you risk scaring off buyers because there's an ongoing "issue" with a neighbour.

So I'd say, do your best to nip it in the bud right now.

BobQ

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

It's my understanding that there isn't a "general rule" as to whose boundary is whose.

In my last place the left-hand boundary was mine (and I was quite clear on that, as my solicitor had pointed at the plan and told me "That one is yours"). In this place, the right-hand one is mine.

EDIT: I would say that by "boundary" that most of us mean "the physical thing that is sitting on the boundary line" (eg fence/wall/etc) rather than the "boundary" itself iyswim.

.

I would say your edit is wrong whatever most people might think. A legal boundary is defined on the deeds (title plan) and any feature on/near/next to it is a construction that may or may not follow the legal boundary. A hedge can obviously grow wider, a wall or fence is generally constructed on the owners side of the boundary unless agreed other wise and may be removed an replaced over time. I have a low wall adjacent to one boundary, my neighbour now has a dog so has built a fence on her side of the boundary. Neither wall or fence is on the boundary.

The Land Registry view is:

Fence boundaries

There’s no law about who owns the boundaries around your property, eg which side of the fence, walls or hedges you’re responsible for.

Check your deeds to find out if there are any boundary agreements. If nothing’s been agreed you can set up an agreement with your neighbours.

Definition of a boundary

The word ‘boundary’ has no special meaning in law. There are two senses in which it can be used: legal boundary and physical boundary.

2.1 Legal boundary

An imaginary or invisible line dividing one person’s property from that of another. It is an exact line having no thickness or width and is rarely identified with any precision either on the ground or in conveyances or transfers and is not shown on Ordnance Survey mapping. Ultimately the exact position of a boundary, if disputed, can be determined only by the court or the Land Registration division of the Property Chamber, First-tier Tribunal.

2.2 Physical boundary

A physical feature that we can see such as a fence, wall or a hedge, which may, coincidentally, also follow the line of a legal boundary. The legal boundary may run within the physical boundary structure but it might just as easily run along one particular side of the structure, or include all or any part of an adjoining roadway or stream. Living boundary structures such as hedges can be prone to a certain degree of movement: for example, if a hedge is left untended it might take root where it touches the ground and become very wide, making its original line hard to discern. So even if it is clear that the legal boundary ran along the hedge, identifying this boundary on the ground may become very difficult.

princeofpounds

A general rule regarding who's boundary is who's is -

Totally incorrect. Whilst rules like this often apply to specific estates, because of the way they were originally set out, there re absolutely zero rules of this nature for general boundaries.

To the OP, you may wish to check out the neighbours from hell forum as well as here, and perhaps gardenlaw boundaries too.

The difficulty you have here is that you have a bully on your hands, and worse than that; a bully who is afraid of your power to object, which makes it more likely he will lash out.

So you have to do a bit of cost/benefit analysis. Firstly remember that any formal dispute with your neighbour will become declarable if you plan to move and sell at any stage in the future.

The you need to decide what your objective is. Is it to live a life with minimal confrontation? Or to stop the development? Or to go to 'war' against a bully to teach a lesson?

This will help you make decisions on:

Planning objection
Harassment
Fence
Satellite dish intrusion

moneyistooshorttomention

Walls do make the best boundary I would say, rather than fences (which can and do move or hedges that grow). I've certainly taken it that with the fact that my boundaries are, in the main, walls that the rule would be "Where a wall is definitely mine, then the boundary lies the furthest-from-me edge of that wall, ie as presumably the wall will have been built right at the extreme edge of my territory, but the whole width of the wall will be within my plot, ie as previous owner wouldn't have built part of the wall on adjoining plot".

Don't know how that stands in law, but is a good "commonsense" way to look at it.

OP's boundary is a fence, so its possible that its inadvertently moved over the years, ie there was an original fence in one spot and the fence then got replaced and, in the process, inadvertently moved a bit onto adjoining plot and that could lead to a situation where the fence was in OP's ownership, but on adjoining plot.

Ozzuk

I still don't get what the OP is actually objecting to? Would you prefer a derelict building that could have rats/squatters or something that could actually add value to the area.

Its not the OPs problem if the new tenants don't have light/room. My only concern would be parking but he hasn't mentioned that. Sounds like OP is the problem not the landlord!

princeofpounds

I still don't get what the OP is actually objecting to?

Whilst I have no doubt that there is an element of hostility in objecting to the planning application, it is also perfectly reasonable for the OP to use their legal right to object.

It is certainly better behaviour than the bullying tactics of the neighbour, given that the objection will be fairly assessed in accordance with planning policy (which I happen to believe is too tight generally, but at least it is the rules that count, and not the fact there is an objection itself).

Planning permission and building regulations are there for good reason; they control the quality of development, which, in a country that restricts development, is very important. There is nothing problematic in wanting the neighbour to play by the same rules as everybody else.

If the neighbour has done the work and then fails to gain permission because it has been done in an incorrect manner, he has only himself to blame.

Ozzuk

princeofpounds wrote: »

Whilst I have no doubt that there is an element of hostility in objecting to the planning application, it is also perfectly reasonable for the OP to use their legal right to object.

It is certainly better behaviour than the bullying tactics of the neighbour, given that the objection will be fairly assessed in accordance with planning policy (which I happen to believe is too tight generally, but at least it is the rules that count, and not the fact there is an objection itself).

Planning permission and building regulations are there for good reason; they control the quality of development, which, in a country that restricts development, is very important. There is nothing problematic in wanting the neighbour to play by the same rules as everybody else.

If the neighbour has done the work and then fails to gain permission because it has been done in an incorrect manner, he has only himself to blame.

That is all very good, but what has that go to do with the OP? Isn't it for the planning team to decide if one window is enough, or if the outside space is adequate? We're only getting one side of the story. I'm all for exercising ones rights, but, again, what is the OP actually objecting to rather than just trying to tell a planning team how to do their job?

dragon32_2

Winter_Phoenix wrote: »

I'm sure this isn't what you want to hear, but my advice would be:

Contact him and say that it's unfortunate that the two of you have got off on the wrong foot, and that you'd like to start again and see if you can get a civilised, neighbourly relationship going between you. (New Year, new beginning and all that.)

With a bit of luck, you will then be in a position to negotiate so that you can both achieve what you want - he replaces the fence panels, you withdraw your planning objections, he moves the Sky dish, you offer to keep an eye on the empty property (or whatever).

I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to reply as I am obviously new to the forums. I have thanked individual users for the comments I found particularly helpful.

I have opted to follow Winter Phoenix's advice. I think the developer is a bully as some people have said, and on principle he should not rightly be able to get away with what he is doing. However I do not have the emotional, time or financial resources to oppose him. Nor do I have a solicitor that is my friend and specialises in this type of matter. He apparently has all of these. This is his full-time job. There are more important things that I would like to spend my life doing such as tackling poverty and injustice (I am not even joking) and my personal hobbies, so spending my resources on this seems unwise.

I have made peace with the developer, withdrawn my objection and he has told me the dish will be moved tomorrow.

princeofpounds' comments on deciding my priority capture very well the conundrum I am facing and helped to crystallise my thoughts.

For those that are interested, the objections I raised are valid as they are from my council's planning policies. Whether the work has been done is pertinent as the application form requires this be specified.

Regarding the boundary, my deeds state that I am responsible for purchasing and maintaining a fence on this particular boundary unless there is a building present. There is a building present on the neighbour's side and mine as well (the garage) with a small gap between the buildings. However, the buildings do not extend along the whole length of the boundary, and the ex-fence made up the difference, which is why I assumed that I owned it.

BobQ's comments about the difference between the legal boundary and physical structures that may or may not represent it are totally valid. In this case the fence that was removed appears to have been within the building line of my neighbour's property and so, subject to some more enquiries on my part, my neighbour may be correct about its ownership.

What is not clear is whether the deeds technically require I maintain a separate fence along the portion of the legal boundary where there is no building on the neighbour's side. In practice I think it is extremely unlikely this particular point would ever be raised by anyone.

Of course these things should be established at the time a property is purchased, but I was ignorant and my solicitor did not execute his work as well as they could have done.

And with that last comment I have made this topic relevant to this forum :-)

BobQ

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Walls do make the best boundary I would say, rather than fences (which can and do move or hedges that grow). I've certainly taken it that with the fact that my boundaries are, in the main, walls that the rule would be "Where a wall is definitely mine, then the boundary lies the furthest-from-me edge of that wall, ie as presumably the wall will have been built right at the extreme edge of my territory, but the whole width of the wall will be within my plot, ie as previous owner wouldn't have built part of the wall on adjoining plot".

Don't know how that stands in law, but is a good "commonsense" way to look at it.

OP's boundary is a fence, so its possible that its inadvertently moved over the years, ie there was an original fence in one spot and the fence then got replaced and, in the process, inadvertently moved a bit onto adjoining plot and that could lead to a situation where the fence was in OP's ownership, but on adjoining plot.

I am sorry but this thread is generally intended to give advice. You seem content to express opinion and then claim it to be fact based on common sense.

The OPs legal boundary is a line, what is on or near it a feature that may or may not match the legal boundary and may or may not be marked in other ways.

Incidentally, based on your experience of constructing walls, how close to a boundary do you think it is possible to build a wall. You say right up to the boundary but where do you think the footings sit?