Implications of overhanging boundary

TheCyclingProgrammer

I'm hoping somebody could give me some advice.

I posted on here last week about a dispute we were having with our neighbour over the boundary line between our properties which had become an issue due to their forthcoming extension.

To keep a long story short, we both paid for a new fence last year, I believe it followed the line of the old fence which was broadly in line with the general boundary indicated on my title plan - a straight line running out at a slight angle from the back of the house to the far end of the garden. The line comes in on their side - about 180mm over the 4.8m of the length of their extension.

Their plans indicated they were setting the start of the extension back from the boundary at the house, but I was concerned it wasn't enough and that it would cross the boundary line at the far end due to the fence angle. They insisted their architects had measured it correctly and that the fence had moved, despite our evidence to the contrary.

We'd always got on well with our neighbours but it got very unpleasant. Keen to reconcile and come up with an amicable solution, we all took a step back and had a discussion with their builder present. We were never going to agree on the fact that the fence had moved and neither of us wanted a drawn out boundary dispute. The builder marked out the extension on the ground with a string line and confirmed that instead of finishing 50-100mm away from the fence as it should have done, it would end up crossing the fence line slightly, with the corner reaching the face of the fence panel on our side.

For the sake of an amicable solution, we reached an agreement to define the boundary such that it ran along the inside of the fence on our side, so their building would not be encroaching. This would mean losing the first two and a half fence panels with the upside being we'd effectively gain a little bit more space for access and maintenance down the side of our conservatory.

We are now on the road to sorting out relationship out with next door, the party wall agreement has been sorted out and we've both agreed to sign a separate schedule to the party wall agreement detailing everything we've agreed in terms of defining the boundary, securing the boundary once the fence is removed, access for their builders etc. and everyone is happy. We are also considering filing a boundary agreement with the land registry to formalise things for future purchasers.

So here's the last remaining issue: when we were working all this out, we forgot to take into consideration the roof detail on this wall. Their plans show the roof, or the tiles, overhanging the wall. I'm not sure by how much - it might only be an inch or two. Along the last metre or so of their wall - due to it coming right up to the boundary - this will mean the edge of their roof will overhang the boundary.

I'm fully prepared to add a clause to our agreement stating that I give them permission for this to overhang the boundary - it has no practical effect on us and most of it it will be on their side anyway. However this does raise a number of issues:

1. Will this potentially cause either of us problems when we want to sell?
2. I assume there's no trespass or potential for claiming adverse possession over the airspace due to the fact that it is explicitly stated as being over the boundary with permission. What about a "flying freehold"? I understand this doesn't apply to things like soffits and gutters, I assume it also wouldn't apply to the edge of the roof tiles?
3. Would any agreement between us be binding on a future owner? What happens if we sell the house and the new owner is really petty and doesn't want it overhanging anymore?

The way I see it there are only three effective options: 1. Give them permission, 2. Ask them to change their roof detail so it doesn't overhang or 3. Them moving the wall in slightly so it's entirely on their side of the already agreed boundary.

I'm almost certain they won't do 3 and I'm reluctant to even suggest it after us finally reaching an agreement yesterday. They might consider 2 but it might add further costs to them. That's why I'd prefer option 1. I've already told them I'd be happy to go with option 1 but it depends on what the implications are.

Thanks.

Doozergirl

I!!!8217;m late to this party wall party.

In your situation I!!!8217;d be be really keen to see it marked as the party wall. Future problems won!!!8217;t properly show themselves until someone starts thinking about extending your house and it all becomes compromised.

If you!!!8217;re prepared to give on your own boundary issue, calling it the party wall would effectively allow both of you to build to the maximum as you both only give 15cm rather than having 30cm walls each, plus gap (even if you think you are giving more away).

All that then means is a new PWA when your side decides to build. Then the roof detail can be redesigned to suit both houses.

Which way does their proposed roof slope? Towards you or into their garden?

Otherwise it!!!8217;s all getting really complicated with paperwork being lodged here there and everywhere.

TheCyclingProgrammer

I think trying to make it a party wall could cause problems of it is own. Where their extension meets the house would be at least 100-200mm from the centre of the party wall between the two houses. If this were to be a party wall, it would mean they are effectively giving up some of their land. If there's one thing that isn't dispute its the centre point between the two properties as that can easily be worked out by reference to the dividing wall.

Having them move the wall closer to the dividing line between the houses would only result in them encroaching by a good 150-200mm at the other end and we simply will not accept this loss of land and it would result in us having to partially remove some of our new patio. They have never suggested doing this and I would not suggest it to them either.

We've already agreed that this wall would not be a party wall.

We can't predict the future. We have no plans to ever build an extension - our property is fairly substantially extended already and has a two story rear extension on the opposite side and a conservatory in the space between.

At most a future owner may remove the conservatory and replace it with a proper extension but building right up to the boundary would be impractical anyway due to the angle that the boundary line runs. On one hand they would be able to build up to the start of the boundary line at the house end and come out at a right angle - the boundary angle means that the neighbours overhang would not prevent this although it would result in a tiny unusable gap between the extensions. Practically, the best option for any extension on our side would be one that has the same footprint as the existing conservatory.

Gloomendoom

Doozergirl wrote: »

I!!!8217;m late to this party wall party

I think your apostrophe is broken.

Doozergirl

Then ask them to redesign it.

You didn't say which direction the roof slopes in.

The point of the party wall is to try and to solve a problem for future owners. A party wall would take 150mm anyway and I don!!!8217;t believe that building at a slight angle is any kind of issue for a builder, nor is lifting and relaying a small section of patio. The practicality of it is not really an issue.

At least the party wall is a definite agreement and a continuation of what exists within the houses. The boundary issue is dealt with by the presence of a clear party wall. It never gets sorted otherwise and it all sounds rather complicated.

TheCyclingProgrammer

Doozergirl wrote: »

Then ask them to redesign it.

I'll mention the option of redesigning the roofline - but the last thing I want to do is cause more disagreement having only just repaired relationships with them.

You didn't say which direction the roof slopes in.

No, sorry. It slopes away from our houses, not towards ours.

The point of the party wall is to try and to solve a problem for future owners. A party wall would take 150mm anyway and I don!!!8217;t believe that building at a slight angle is any kind of issue for a builder, nor is lifting and relaying a small section of patio. The practicality of it is not really an issue.

At least the party wall is a definite agreement and a continuation of what exists within the houses. The boundary issue is dealt with by the presence of a clear party wall. It never gets sorted otherwise and it all sounds rather complicated.

I can say with certainty that there is zero chance of them changing anything on their plans, including building at an angle right up to the boundary. Likewise we are not willing to have any of our landscaping disturbed or reducing our access space down the side of our conservatory. We have an agreement that suits both of us, the only issue is this overhang. It's not a problem for me, it's such a minor thing, I just want my neighbours to be aware of the implications. If they want to pay the legal costs of having an easement in the deeds that's fine, I think.

Does the roof have to overhang the side of the wall on our side?

Doozergirl

If it slopes away then it would only be a matter of an inch, presumably not even over the fence. The agreement may as well include any overhang. It can hardly be a flying freehold when the boundary on a Land Registry plan is thicker than one in real life.

Sloping to you would be much more of an issue.

TheCyclingProgrammer

Doozergirl wrote: »

If it slopes away then it would only be a matter of an inch, presumably not even over the fence. The agreement may as well include any overhang. It can hardly be a flying freehold when the boundary on a Land Registry plan is thicker than one in real life.

Sloping to you would be much more of an issue.

OK, so my preference had been to maintain the straight but angled boundary on our agreement so it broadly matched the general boundary on our title plan, with the only difference it was more specifically defined.

My reason for doing this is that redefining the boundary to follow the wall, then change angle and follow the remainder of the fence (the first two and a half panels are being removed) may imply that there had been a transfer of land and from my reading on the subject (it seems complicated) if we wanted to file a boundary agreement with the land registry it must be clear that no land has been transferred.

If it turns out that a slight deviation would be acceptable then we may be able to proceed on this basis, just bringing the boundary line out an extra inch so it includes the overhang, then comes in when it reaches the corner of their building to the centre of the fence (which will now start from the corner of their wall) and running along the centre of the party fence to the far end.

TheCyclingProgrammer

Coming back to this, I still think that any agreement that appears to redefine the boundary line as one that seems significantly different to the one on our title plan may be construed as a transfer or land and rejected by the land registry as a boundary agreement. This is frustrating that whilst we simply want to reach an amicable agreement, formalising this seems to throw up all sorts of caveats.

Therefore I'm still leaning towards a simpler boundary agreement that shows a straight boundary line running at an angle that looks the same as the one on our title plan, only more precisely defined by measurements to fixed reference points.

This still leaves the issue of the small amount of overhanging roof. As you say Doozergirl, the overhang of the tiles will not be much - maybe only an inch, and due to the angle of the boundary its likely that only the last couple of feet of the extension would be considered to be overhanging. Again, I'm happy to put in writing that we give permission for this to that effect and leave it at that. I don't want to start going down potentially expensive routes that involve legal costs to get some kind of easement written in the deeds or anything that might potentially devalue our property.

This would mean the neighbour accepting that whilst we give permission, a future owner may want to withdraw it if they want to get petty (or build right along the boundary line which would mean building at an angle instead of setting it back slightly). If they are happy to accept this because they don't want to move their wall over even an inch, then I think that's the closest we can come to a compromise. Any agreement would be disclosed when we sell, its up to the seller to decide if that is a problem. I believe after 20 years it may be deemed a prescriptive easement anyway.

This would all be much, much simpler if our neighbours agreed to simply move their wall back an inch or two. I still find it incredibly frustrating that they aren't willing to budget on this, over such a small amount. They seem to think because they have to build to exactly what is on their planning permission plans, that they can't make such a insignificant change. My understanding is that this would be considered a non-material change and the planning officer would either accept it without any paperwork or with the submission of a non-material change (two weeks turnaround, no fee). So I don't understand what the big deal is.

Aylesbury_Duck

Given your last paragraph, I’d push them to make the change. From the tone of your threads on this, I think if the neighbours proceed with their plans, it will gnaw away at you that they were unreasonable. You find it incredibly frustrating that they won’t make what I agree is a small change. I reckon that once the thing is built you might find its obvious presence a constant reminder of their intransigence.

I admire your resolve to try and compromise and resolve things amicably but it seems like you’re going to a lot of trouble, present and future, to let them have their way when a small change on their part would eradicate much of that trouble.

TheCyclingProgrammer

Thanks for the reply.

We spoke with our neighbour again tonight and I think we have come up with a potential solution.

Whilst it seemed beneficial to agree on a more precise boundary it seems that doing so creates more problems, such as the overhang.

Instead we have agreed to simply agree that their wall will be a certain distance away from the edge of our patio and leave it at that. We won’t do any formal boundary agreement.

This leaves us in a position that they can build their extension wall up to the point we have agreed in a separate schedule to our party wall agreement however leaves us with the boundary only being defined by the general boundary in our deeds. As this cannot be defined precisely anyway it would be very difficult for a future owner of our house to claim their roof overhangs. The risk is still there, but it’s one they are willing to accept.

For all intents and purposes their extension wall will become the practical boundary and then continue along the fence but legally the boundary remains unambiguous which is probably for the best. We don’t need to worry about any legal implications and everybody is now getting on again, so alls we’ll that ends well I guess.