Neighbours seeking planning for extension with new party wall

Doozergirl

Also, these things get legal and costly when they argue over 15cm of land that would otherwise contain a fence.

It simply is not worth it.

Mickygg

Doozergirl wrote: »

Also, these things get legal and costly when they argue over 15cm of land that would otherwise contain a fence.

It simply is not worth it.

Costly yes, worth it yes.

Doozergirl

Mickygg wrote: »

Costly yes, worth it yes.

It depends on what you value. I don’t place much value on a fence being replaced by a continuation of a party wall that already exists inside the house without the same people getting upset about losing space. Because it forms a valuable piece of their home.

Even if I didn’t intend to extend, it would be a benefit for the next owner and I would have joint ownership of that wall in the meantime. Ultimately, that 15cm saves at least an additional 30cm being lost to a boundary wall when the other house is eventually extended, which it almost certainly will be.

The wall is coming, regardless, and the neighbours do have the right to place footings astride the boundary even if the placement of the wall itself is entirely on the neighbour’s side. Placing the wall astride the boundary as a continuation of the existing party wall, being able to use that wall for an interior wall of a future extension, have half ownership of it in the meantime and agree the look of it of it is an advantage over looking at the side of a wall that the neighbour has no responsibility to make attractive for you. I suspect that a battle would result in a neighbour being less amenable. Who wants to look at an unrendered concrete block wall?

No one marks their boundary with a line of no width, which is what a boundary has. Something of bulk has to mark it, losing space for someone.

Davesnave

Mickygg wrote: »

Costly yes, worth it yes.

You're probably right that people with a certain sort of mind set will define value in their own terms and pay virtually any amount they can afford for almost nothing.

moneyistooshorttomention

But if these particular current owners of this house aren't ever going to want an extension themselves personally = they aren't likely to care if some future owner might want an extension.

What they will care about is the "here and now" - of mucking up their flowerbeds and putting them through hassle that won't give them personally any benefit.

It's an analogous situation to I've just re-done my kitchen - and I didnt leave space in case a future owner may want a dishwasher. I did what I personally want right now - as it's my house right now and I'm the one paying for it/dealing with the hassle. By the time I come to die (which is when my house and, one presumes, the house OP is talking about come to be sold) it will be quite a few years down the line and what the next owner (in decades time) does is their business and not ours right now.

Doozergirl

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

But if these particular current owners of this house aren't ever going to want an extension themselves personally = they aren't likely to care if some future owner might want an extension.

What they will care about is the "here and now" - of mucking up their flowerbeds and putting them through hassle that won't give them personally any benefit.

It's an analogous situation to I've just re-done my kitchen - and I didnt leave space in case a future owner may want a dishwasher. I did what I personally want right now - as it's my house right now and I'm the one paying for it/dealing with the hassle. By the time I come to die (which is when my house and, one presumes, the house OP is talking about come to be sold) it will be quite a few years down the line and what the next owner (in decades time) does is their business and not ours right now.

The flower beds are going to be affected anyway! The decisions to be made don’t involve whether or not their plants are damaged. They will be. The Act allows for reinstatement at the neighbour’s cost.

You cannot stop your neighbour extending their footings onto your land. The Party Wall Act is an enabling act, not something to be argued over. It may well be that there is a fence in the same position already.

I’ve already stated ways in which it benefits people who do not intend to extend. Your dishwasher analogy is awful. One unit can be removed and replaced with a dishwasher at any point, with virtually no cost implications and control is maintained always by the owner of the house. A wall over the other side can mean footings under your land but gives control over the wall entirely to the neighbour. Would you choose to look at this?
https://imgur.com/gallery/Os6J7
Because that is what they can give you and still destroy your flower beds. And you won’t even be allowed to hang a basket on it.

A party wall is expensive and permanent and needs to be considered. It should not involve knee jerk reactions about land grab. There is a reason that you spend so much of your time stressed and in conflict. You genuinely beleive that if you think something, it is fact. It isn’t. You have a choice about how to feel and think and other people have feelings and opinions too. Some of them are considered and some of them even have laws backing them up.

loveka

Hello. Having just been through hell on earth with the same thing, I thought I would offer my advice.

The footings are allowed to encroach on the other side, as long as a party wall agreement is in place. They are allowed to build from the other side, again with an agreement in place. This means they can destroy the garden on the other side. They would be required to reinstate the garden exactly as it was afterwards. What usually happens is that they would lodge the money in an account before the work starts.

You are entitled to appoint your own party wall surveyor who looks after your interests. They pay for this surveyor.

If they start work without a party wall agreement then you have to seek an injunction to stop the work.

In my case, they started without an award. While I was away they dug up my garden. I now have a huge wall where once there was a fence covered in beautiful roses and clematis. I can't replant near the wall as anything I grow can't be attached to the wall itself. So I would have to put a fence in front of the wall, thus losing a few inches of garden.

I was too late to get an injunction. My solicitor said it would cost up to £3 k to get one anyway. My neighbours view was that he had done everything the act allows, but just without the expense of an award.

I am now faced with going to court to get the money for the garden. The stress has nearly killed me. Do I want to go through legal proceedings, having the stress carry on? Well, I want him to pay what he owes me, but many would say to let it go.

I am trying to move. I thought I knew what hate meant, but I really didn't until I met this man I now have to live next door to.

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

What they will care about is the "here and now" - of mucking up their flowerbeds and putting them through hassle that won't give them personally any benefit.

That's how it looks, but it comes down to acceptance of change, understanding and helpfulness.

Here, there seems to be little acceptance that the changes will happen, or much understanding of what they'll involve.

It sounds like the neighbours have probably got off on the wrong foot, but where this goes now and the amount of hassle generated is very much a live issue, born out of the relationship which is formed as work progresses. Being unhelpful, besides being un-neighbourly, could be very counter productive.

As I've recounted before, a relative of mine had a neighbiour object to his building a wall on the boundary. The person was as obstructive as possible and refused all access. The wall was still built, just rather badly, because laying bricks overhand isn't easy and the bricklayer was instructed not to worry too much. The result was structurally OK, but it didn't look very good. Only the neighbour had to look at it though!

Four years later, the neighbour asked for that wall to be improved, so it was agreed that my relative would have it rendered. He even let the neighbour choose the colour.

Neighbours can be a pain, but trying to meeting them half way is usually the most intelligent strategy when their ideas don't necessarily coincide with one's own.

Davesnave

loveka wrote: »

I am now faced with going to court to get the money for the garden. The stress has nearly killed me. Do I want to go through legal proceedings, having the stress carry on? Well, I want him to pay what he owes me, but many would say to let it go.

I am trying to move. I thought I knew what hate meant, but I really didn't until I met this man I now have to live next door to.

You are not in a good place.

How much of that is of your own making isn't possible for anyone else to determine, but if moving helps you to gain inner peace again, that's what you should do.

Frankly, a bit of garden soil is worth very little, compared with one's wellbeing.

warby68

Sometimes its worth considering the 'lesser of the evils' approach.

No your relatives don't want the change but change is coming. Much better to be a party to the change.

Being 'awkward' can likely mean a worse result both for short and long term.

Accepting the wall and negotiating on its appearance, what you can do with it afterwards and what redress there will be for the messed up borders sounds much better than retaining an extra 6 inches of total mess which then need a fence which still won't hide the view of the alternative wall (which might even end up with a naughty window in it) and lots of impassable space between everything to keep pretty.

I'm a complete lay person but that's what I infer from the discussion.

Digging your heels in because you feel affronted by the neighbour is short-sighted at best.