Squeeze-in houses

GalaxyStar

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3537154,-1.2169542,3a,75y,216.99h,74.7t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1syPH3UEZkjz5FZrb_mEIt3Q!2e0 Hope this link works. We walked past this earlier, clearly in what used to be the garden to the house next door, which seemed to have given up their garage too as it belongs to the funny looking one. It's a weird house.

moneyistooshorttomention

lincroft1710 wrote: »

They would easily convert into a bedsit with kitchen and shower room. Ideal holiday let. George Clarke's "Amazing Spaces" showed an ingenious conversion of an underground public toilet in London a couple of years ago.

I remember that one. Looked quite nice, but small and I for one would darn soon get claustrophobic.

phoebe1989seb

Pixie5740 wrote: »

It's not quite a squeezed in house but does anyone remember a story from last year about an older couple with a detached house whose new neighbour (a property developer allegedly) extended their property, without planning permission, overlapping the boundary and the council were going to do SFA about it.


I'll try and find a link.


Edit: Found it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenpolitics/planning/11090584/Couples-detached-250000-home-almost-turned-into-a-semi-by-neighbours-huge-extension.html

Something akin to that happened to a house we used to own - although in this instance it wasn't an extension per se (and afaik it didn't overlap the boundary), but a new house built in the 1950s on the plot of a large detached Victorian house that had been destroyed by a bomb during WW2.

We bought the adjoining house in the late 1990s. When constructed in the 1880s it had been fully detached with a wide gap separating it from the house that was later razed to the ground. Now, however, it had a miniscule crevice between the two buildings and the replacement *house* was a butt-ugly flat-roofed monstrosity purpose-built as about six flats. During our ownership of the house, the neighbouring property was bought up by a developer (for his own use) and rebuilt......however, he opted not to increase the gap to its former proportions, instead adding a huge indoor pool complex obviously wanting to take advantage of every millimetre of floor space available

moneyistooshorttomention

GalaxyStar wrote: »

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3537154,-1.2169542,3a,75y,216.99h,74.7t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1syPH3UEZkjz5FZrb_mEIt3Q!2e0 Hope this link works. We walked past this earlier, clearly in what used to be the garden to the house next door, which seemed to have given up their garage too as it belongs to the funny looking one. It's a weird house.

Defo squeeze territory there indeed.

My first thought, if I were interested in buying the squeeze-in would be "Have the sellers fully accepted that that bit of their garden is now mine - or will they be trying to just use a bit of it for this/then just use another bit of it for that?" The "have cake and eat it" syndrome of selling it, but still expecting a bit of use from it.

stator

GalaxyStar wrote: »

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3537154,-1.2169542,3a,75y,216.99h,74.7t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1syPH3UEZkjz5FZrb_mEIt3Q!2e0 Hope this link works. We walked past this earlier, clearly in what used to be the garden to the house next door, which seemed to have given up their garage too as it belongs to the funny looking one. It's a weird house.

How ghastly. Can't imagine how the planning department allowed that with a flat roof. Completely out of style for the area. Their side extension is awful too. Bet next door are angry, must bring down their property value.

GalaxyStar

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Defo squeeze territory there indeed.

My first thought, if I were interested in buying the squeeze-in would be "Have the sellers fully accepted that that bit of their garden is now mine - or will they be trying to just use a bit of it for this/then just use another bit of it for that?" The "have cake and eat it" syndrome of selling it, but still expecting a bit of use from it.

I'd be suspicious that they didn't want the garage back one day! The garage partially blocks the building from the road, unfortunately not all of it!

stator wrote: »

How ghastly. Can't imagine how the planning department allowed that with a flat roof. Completely out of style for the area. Their side extension is awful too. Bet next door are angry, must bring down their property value.

That's exactly what I said, all the houses are different down the road but they're all nice houses, except for that thing. It looks like an old school building. Could have at least had a pitched roof!

patman99

lincroft1710 wrote: »

If you want "older houses" with tiny rooms on tiny plots, look at Jaywick Sands in Essex. Nearly all bungalows, many of inferior construction.

The properties on Jaywick Sands were originally built as weekend retreats and were never intended for year-round permanent living.
They are mainly timber-framed with render on the outside.

moneyistooshorttomention

GalaxyStar wrote: »

I'd be suspicious that they didn't want the garage back one day! The garage partially blocks the building from the road, unfortunately not all of it!



That's exactly what I said, all the houses are different down the road but they're all nice houses, except for that thing. It looks like an old school building. Could have at least had a pitched roof!

The more I look at that squeeze-in, the more I am actually getting a bit confused as to just which house sold on that bit of garden and that garage belonged to them originally.

I took it that it was the semi-detached on right of this and then thought "Well they've obviously added an extension on the side and said extension has a garage. Maybe its the bungalow on the other side that sold on a bit of garden and their garage then?".

Either way, it does look distinctly odd and I'm not at all sure how well it would "work" to live there.

stator

It's very confusing if you look at the house numbers. The right hand semi has 11. The left hand semi has 15. The awful ugly house with garage has 17 and the bungalow next door has 19. I'm guessing they missed out 13 for supersticious reasons? If you look at the aerial photo you'll see the ugly house is also very big.

stator

If you look at the old maps you'll see it was actually the bungalow that owned that large plot of land and the garage probably originally belonged to them:
https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/452240/384357
Look at the 1970's map 1:2500