Building on a boundary line?

Baxter100

Hello all,

We are looking at buying an end of terrace house, which shares a boundary with a piece of council owned land. The house has had an extension added, which runs right along the edge of the boundary between the house and the section of council land. The extension is effectively the full length of the house.

We are trying to work out if this could be a problem should the piece of council owned land ever be sold off in the future. As the boundary of the adjoining land runs right up to the extension wall, could developers feasibly build right up against the wall if they so wished? Would they have to leave a small gap? Is it even practically possible to build right up against our wall?

The extension wall would always need accessing, as the boiler is connected to this external wall.

fishpond

Ask the council if they would like to sell the land to you, is the only suggestion that springs to mind.

SailorSam

When my Sister bought her house, the people next door had a big extension right on the boundary, but it meant when you got up to the eaves it was overhanging onto her side. Which means if they ever decide to build she's going to have problems with the roof. Then when my neighbour were building they asked did i mind if they did exactly the same building right on the boundary. But in their case the eaves of the house is right at the bottom of my garden so should never cause a problem.
You do see quite a few modern detached houses with only inches between them, i've wondered what would happen if there was a problem.

davidmcn

Baxter100 wrote: »

The extension wall would always need accessing, as the boiler is connected to this external wall.

If the edge of the wall is actually the boundary, doesn't this mean that the boiler flue is already encroaching on the neighbours' property?

Baxter100

davidmcn wrote: »

If the edge of the wall is actually the boundary, doesn't this mean that the boiler flue is already encroaching on the neighbours' property?

Yes, technically. It isn't a neighbour's property as such, but unused council land at the moment.

Baxter100

fishpond wrote: »

Ask the council if they would like to sell the land to you, is the only suggestion that springs to mind.

We had thought of this. The problem is that at the moment the land has a covenant that it must always be used as open space, so we couldn't buy it currently.

The covenant should be good news of course (in terms of the land not being developed on), but from what we can gather the covenant is fairly easy to remove in future if the Council so wished. At which point they would be unlikely to sell us a small section if there was a developer offering £xxxxxx.

AdrianC

Baxter100 wrote: »

We had thought of this. The problem is that at the moment the land has a covenant that it must always be used as open space, so we couldn't buy it currently.

Yes, you could. You just couldn't then build on it - but that's OK, because you don't want it built on.

Baxter100

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, you could. You just couldn't then build on it - but that's OK, because you don't want it built on.

Yes... that's interesting. The wording of the covenant is:

"The Council hereby covenant with the Vendors that they will at all
times henceforth use the land hereby conveyed as an open space and will maintain it in good condition."

I wonder if that lends itself to the Council selling a small strip of that land to a private property? Maybe with the stipulation that it wouldn't be built on.

AdrianC

Baxter100 wrote: »

Yes... that's interesting. The wording of the covenant is:

"The Council hereby covenant with the Vendors that they will at all
times henceforth use the land hereby conveyed as an open space and will maintain it in good condition."

I wonder if that lends itself to the Council selling a small strip of that land to a private property? Maybe with the stipulation that it wouldn't be built on.

The question is, do they mean an "open space" or do they mean an unfenced, publicly accessible open space.

Neither, of course, is incompatible with private ownership.

Baxter100

AdrianC wrote: »

The question is, do they mean an "open space" or do they mean an unfenced, publicly accessible open space.

Neither, of course, is incompatible with private ownership.

Thanks, definitely worth some further investigation.

moneyistooshorttomention

Baxter100 wrote: »

Yes... that's interesting. The wording of the covenant is:

"The Council hereby covenant with the Vendors that they will at all
times henceforth use the land hereby conveyed as an open space and will maintain it in good condition."

I wonder if that lends itself to the Council selling a small strip of that land to a private property? Maybe with the stipulation that it wouldn't be built on.

My mind is starting to boggle with wondering just how many ways a solicitor could interpret that phrase.

- The Council must be the ones to stay in ownership of the land
is the first one that comes to mind (ie not sell the land onto anyone else).

I would say that the vendor who sold that land to the Council has made it crystal clear the Council are to be the ones staying in ownership of it and it is to remain as public amenity space.

Accordingly, it wouldn't be right for anyone to try and buy it and if the vendor (or their descendants) are still alive, then they are likely to "go into battle" to keep that land as public amenity space.

I would certainly interpret that phrase as "unfenced publicly accessible publicly owned".