Neighbours extension overhanging boundary line

Bendy_House

theoretica said:

Does a party wall get built with the outer face along the boundary - so whoever builds second gets slightly more land, or does it being a party wall mean the boundary should go right down the middle of the wall and it should encroach on the neighbour's land a little so it is equal when (if) the neighbour builds an extension too?

Ooh, good question. I don't know.
Hopefully SD's Leg Prot or PWS will be able to answer that.

What seems very clear, tho', is that the full-width design had included for zero encroachment on either neighb, and this has been changed without consultation.

Bendy_House

Oh, and the neighb and builder know what they are doing, and will be half-expecting a response. So if they act 'surprised' or puzzled at your concern, add 'somewhat devious' to their list of qualities.

Again, Q; "Really? You are surprised that I'm pointing out a blatant change to the approved plan, that will effectively result in me losing land?"

shoe_dog

theoretica said:

Does a party wall get built with the outer face along the boundary - so whoever builds second gets slightly more land, or does it being a party wall mean the boundary should go right down the middle of the wall and it should encroach on the neighbour's land a little so it is equal when (if) the neighbour builds an extension too?

As far as i'm aware there's no such thing as a single party wall that you both 'share', you both build your own wall within your boundary line meaning the adjoining houses are separated by a double-wall depth. Don't forget things like electrics are plumbed into these walls so each neighbour needs their own. 

Section62

shoe_dog said:

theoretica said:

Does a party wall get built with the outer face along the boundary - so whoever builds second gets slightly more land, or does it being a party wall mean the boundary should go right down the middle of the wall and it should encroach on the neighbour's land a little so it is equal when (if) the neighbour builds an extension too?

As far as i'm aware there's no such thing as a single party wall that you both 'share', you both build your own wall within your boundary line meaning the adjoining houses are separated by a double-wall depth. Don't forget things like electrics are plumbed into these walls so each neighbour needs their own. 

theoretica's question wasn't whether a single-skin wall would be built, but where the double-skin wall should be positioned.

In an ideal world the first person to build puts up a double-skin, centred on the property boundary (or existing party wall), the cost of which is shared (possibly by a payment in the future) if the second person builds using 'their' side of the wall.  The first party gains by having part of 'their' extension on the second party's land, the second party gains by not needing to build that wall as part of their extension.

AIUI, a wall isn't a true party wall if it is wholly on person 1's side of the boundary - unless there is a more complex agreement in place.

Hence in this case it isn't clear whether the wall is a party wall or not, nor what exactly you've agreed to.  Before firing off 20 questions to your neighbour, you need to go back to what you signed and understand exactly what you were agreeing to.  e.g. Does the agreement allow the neighbour to alter the design?

The neighbour probably needs planning consent and (additional) building regs approval for the altered design - I would spend time today finding out more about that, before dealing with the gutter issue.

shoe_dog

Section62 said:

In an ideal world the first person to build puts up a double-skin, centred on the property boundary (or existing party wall), the cost of which is shared (possibly by a payment in the future) if the second person builds using 'their' side of the wall.  The first party gains by having part of 'their' extension on the second party's land, the second party gains by not needing to build that wall as part of their extension.

Funny you should mention that as this is exactly what we did when we built our loft, provided (at no cost to our neighbour) a double-skin wall in case our neighbour wanted to build a lost extension in the future, which of course he's now doing along with the kitchen and first floor bathroom. 

Ironically, at first he thought we'd built across the boundary line until i explained that we'd actually just provided a wall for him to use. 

aoleks

these things make my blood boil, but it will be difficult to do anything about it now. as mentioned before, going into a dispute could mean a lengthy, costly (extremely costly, potentially 6 figures) legal war that you're likely to lose anyway (no judge cares about a few inches here and there). it will also decrease the value of your house when you come to sell, as you have an active dispute going on (and boundary disputes are probably the worst).

and besides, what can possible be done other than demolishing the extension and starting again?

Section62

aoleks said:

these things make my blood boil, but it will be difficult to do anything about it now. as mentioned before, going into a dispute could mean a lengthy, costly (extremely costly, potentially 6 figures) legal war that you're likely to lose anyway (no judge cares about a few inches here and there). it will also decrease the value of your house when you come to sell, as you have an active dispute going on (and boundary disputes are probably the worst).

and besides, what can possible be done other than demolishing the extension and starting again?

Why do you think demolishing (that part of) the extension and starting again isn't an option?

Do you have any evidence that "no judge cares about a few inches here and there" when dealing with boundaries/party walls?

If (and the OP is a long way from that) a court makes a judgement about the boundary/party wall then the dispute will no longer be "active".  It will be settled in a way which is about the best possible outcome in terms of a prospective future sale.  Allowing the neighbour's property to unofficially 'squat' on your land leaves an open situation which is potentially more likely to cause problems when selling.

babyblade41

I know nothing about PW's but wasn't this build clear earlier on that it went against what was on the original plans ?

If it were me I would be making the challenge now especially as you have legal protection, this won't go away & will be a thorn in your side moving forward 

My first port of call is to arrange a meeting with the neighbour with the builders present to try &  find a way to move forward without the need for a lengthy legal battle ...but I would make it very clear that if this isn't rectified then you will press on with getting it put back to the original plan.

I disagree with @aoleks that a judge won't be bothered with this as they most definitely will be, breech of planning is something they do like to make a stance on or else everyone would start encroaching on land that doesn't belong to them.

If this means demolishing that part of the build then so be it 

aoleks

babyblade41 said:

I know nothing about PW's but wasn't this build clear earlier on that it went against what was on the original plans ?

If it were me I would be making the challenge now especially as you have legal protection, this won't go away & will be a thorn in your side moving forward 

My first port of call is to arrange a meeting with the neighbour with the builders present to try &  find a way to move forward without the need for a lengthy legal battle ...but I would make it very clear that if this isn't rectified then you will press on with getting it put back to the original plan.

I disagree with @aoleks that a judge won't be bothered with this as they most definitely will be, breech of planning is something they do like to make a stance on or else everyone would start encroaching on land that doesn't belong to them.

If this means demolishing that part of the build then so be it 

planning has absolutely nothing to do with boundaries. planning issues are one thing, land law is something completely different. if you want to end up like them, go ahead:

Couple forced to remortgage home after losing dispute over SIX inches of land - Mirror Online

Family's lost home over boundary dispute underlines the importance of legal advice | Ogier

Section62

aoleks said:

babyblade41 said:

I know nothing about PW's but wasn't this build clear earlier on that it went against what was on the original plans ?

If it were me I would be making the challenge now especially as you have legal protection, this won't go away & will be a thorn in your side moving forward 

My first port of call is to arrange a meeting with the neighbour with the builders present to try &  find a way to move forward without the need for a lengthy legal battle ...but I would make it very clear that if this isn't rectified then you will press on with getting it put back to the original plan.

I disagree with @aoleks that a judge won't be bothered with this as they most definitely will be, breech of planning is something they do like to make a stance on or else everyone would start encroaching on land that doesn't belong to them.

If this means demolishing that part of the build then so be it 

planning has absolutely nothing to do with boundaries. planning issues are one thing, land law is something completely different. if you want to end up like them, go ahead:

Couple forced to remortgage home after losing dispute over SIX inches of land - Mirror Online

Family's lost home over boundary dispute underlines the importance of legal advice | Ogier

^That is incorrect.  Whilst you can apply for planning consent for development on land you don't own, there is a complex relationship between planning law and property law which means that the two can rarely be separated entirely.

In this case, if the neighbour had applied for consent for what they have built, the OP could have objected on the grounds the development crosses the boundary onto their property and they would not consent to this encroachment.  The planners would be unlikely to give consent - or if they did, give consent without conditions which required the applicant to secure rights to use neighbouring land/air space - because it would be impossible to complete the development in accordance with the plans without those rights being acquired.

This is moot, because it appears the plans which were given consent don't reflect what has actually been constructed.  The neighbour therefore appears to be in breach of the planning consent and may (depending on the council's view) be required to seek consent for this variation, or alter the works to achieve compliance.

The two media examples aren't particularly relevant to this case.  The one in the Mirror, if I understand it correctly, relates to judges caring very much about "a few inches here and there" and deciding in favour of the party who appears to have lost some land.  The reason why the case got so expensive has more to do with process (e.g. the qualifications of the surveyor) and accepting (or otherwise) previous judgements.  The OP's case is more clear-cut because the position of the centre of the original party wall can be determined quite accurately and is immediately adjacent to the boundary in possible dispute.

The other article refers to a case on the island of Jersey, which has a very different approach to property ownership and law compared to England.