Should we have to pay

lincroft1710

Lisy, I tend to agree, but sometimes a neighbour will spend a few pounds just to maintain good relations. I have very recent personal experience of this, although different circumstances.

spadoosh

Lostbook wrote: »

Thanks for the replies

Yes we understand these are not reasons for objecting

The point I was trying to make (sorry not very well) was why should we have to pay when we are facing a financial cost

As our garden is very small there is no other place for our washing line

Thanks again

The impression youve given to me is that youre a NIMBY (not in my back yard!). Its not unusual for someone displaying such an attitude to be treat with contempt.

Id suggest a willingness to cooperate rather than the impression you will cause problems at every turn could result in a neighbour willing to meet you half way with your concerns.

davidmcn

Lostbook wrote: »

The satellite dish will point directly onto the second floor extension

Then you'll need to move your dish. You don't have a right to point it through your neighbours' airspace.

lisyloo

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Lisy, I tend to agree, but sometimes a neighbour will spend a few pounds just to maintain good relations. I have very recent personal experience of this, although different circumstances.

It's totally petty. A washing line is not a right.
Reading post #11 looks like the neighbour is not interested.


I don't know the legality though of using the neighbours property. That IS a different matter.

AnotherJoe

I think you need to investigate the access issue, via solicitor.

I dont know they have any rights of access to your land to put scaffolding up..
This for example, seems to say they dont.

Lostbook

Appreciate the comments

Off to work so I wish you all a good evening

teneighty

Lostbook wrote: »

Thanks for further comments

The neighbor was not interested in our concerns

They feel they only need to serve a party wall agreement and that will compel us to allow their workmen to erect scaffolding in our garden

The satellite dish will point directly onto the second floor extension

Thanks all

Well I can put your mind at rest on that point. The Party Wall Act does not automatically confer the right to erect scaffolding on neighbours land.

If the work does indeed fall under the Party Wall Act your neighbour should serve notice on you giving you the option to appoint your own party wall surveyor to represent your interests, at the neighbours cost. That could include denying access for scaffolding or if it is essential then financial compensation for the temporary loss of use of your garden.

If the build is close to the boundary it would also be reasonable to insist on relevant protection to your property such as a temporary cover to the fish pond.

It is unfortunate that your neighbours have failed to be more communicative. I would always urge neighbours to try to reach amicable solutions in this sort of situation but sometimes that doesn't work and you need to follow the full and potentially expensive (for your neighbour) procedures in the Act. Hopefully your neighbours will see sense and start being a bit more amenable.

Lucky_Duck_2

AnotherJoe wrote: »

I think you need to investigate the access issue, via solicitor.

I dont know they have any rights of access to your land to put scaffolding up..
This for example, seems to say they dont.

Indeed, hopefully the OP has the benefit of legal protection on their home insurance.

A long time ago we had problem with neighbour's contractors erecting scaffolding on our property to build an extension - relations never recovered and we breathed a sigh of relief when the moved out several years later.

AdrianC

Whether they'll even get permission for a two-storey extension that close to the boundary is another question. It's one thing applying, it's another getting.

Put an objection in. Keep it relevant, keep it factual.
Note, and focus on, the bold "most likely to be refused" grounds in this:
http://planninglawblog.blogspot.com/p/how-to-object.html

CarrieVS

AdrianC wrote: »

Note, and focus on, the bold "most likely to be refused" grounds in this:
http://planninglawblog.blogspot.com/p/how-to-object.html

In the "will not be considered" list immediately after, apparently the author found it necessary to point out that you can't get your neighbour's application refused because they're a transgender lesbian Muslim Communist from Syria, ahead of things like "effect on the value of neighbouring properties." People just kinda suck.