Neighbour encroaching on my land.

twopenny

Or you could charge him rent for the part of his property on your land 
Sounds like a taker, everthing for his own benefit. Though having 3 levels of boundary must be confusing so why didn't he ask?
Best have a chat first. 

theoretica

Once you get your neighbour to acknowledge where the boundary is, you could offer to sell him the necessary strip - with him to pay all legal expenses.  It would make the issue of difficulties on selling the property go away.

Doozergirl

vet88 said:

Thanks for your replies.
I do agree Bendy House that the boundary was a bit loose, in fact at one stage the previous neighbours erected a fence on their side of the boundary hedge, so it was a mess. I am very happy to sort out the whole thing, take it all down and start again which is what I thought this guy was doing. 
As an aside he has already extended his house enormously and I do not know how he got away with it. The local rules say no house can be extended by more than 50% of its size on a certain date, he must have doubled his place, but he got planning consent. I assume he bribed the planners.

Hold up! 

I think you would be far safer assuming that you don't know that much about planning than to assume corruption?! 

There are a few national 50% rules to do with something called 'permitted development' that allows you to
build without formal planning permission and the date would be 1st July 1948.  

Gaining full planning permission itself is quite different and less likely to be subject to arbitrary rules like that. Applications are considered more on their own merit.  

Section62

vet88 said:

The local rules say no house can be extended by more than 50% of its size on a certain date, he must have doubled his place, but he got planning consent. I assume he bribed the planners.

Each application has to be considered on its own merits, within the framework of national, regional and local planning guidance.

Local 'rules' shouldn't say "no house can be extended by more than 50%...".  What the policy should say would be something like "There will be a presumption that extensions greater than 50% [of the original house] will be approved only in exceptional circumstances [more text clarifying what that means]" which will be preceeded or followed by a justification for that policy.

The planning officer considering the application has to have regard to that policy, but is not allowed (legally) to follow it absolutely.  Otherwise an applicant may be able to challenge the decision through the courts.

As an example, a small dwelling on a large plot could easily be increased in size by far more than 50% with no impact on neighbouring properties.  It would be Wednesbury unreasonable for a local planning authority to refuse that application solely because they have a 50% 'rule'.

If he got planning consent then there will be a public report in which the planning officer gives their reasoned justification for the decision/recommendation which anyone can get hold of and read.  This makes it exceptionally difficult/pointless to 'bribe' planning officers (aside from their professionalism) because to be able to produce a reasoned justification means the decision they came to is a decision they could have come to with or without a 'bribe'.

vet88

I do actually know quite a bit about the local planning rules as I had a very long fight with the planners myself.

The local rule says that no extension can exceed 50% of the original footprint of the house on the 1st of April 1974 (I think that is the date) and lots of local people have had their extensions turned down or been told to alter their plans because of it. This was brought up in the planning inspector's report for the neighbour's extension, but for some reason they decided that a previous extension on the house was built before 1974, when I know it was built in the 80s and I have an aerial photo to prove it. 

From my dealings with the planners I am sure they can be bribed, one virtually admitted it to me and I also know an ex-builder who says he personally delivered a large bag full of cash to a planning department to get one of their developments approved.

Section62

vet88 said:

I do actually know quite a bit about the local planning rules as I had a very long fight with the planners myself.

The local rule says that no extension can exceed 50% of the original footprint of the house on the 1st of April 1974 (I think that is the date) and lots of local people have had their extensions turned down or been told to alter their plans because of it.

As someone who has written local plan policies I find it very difficult to believe that is the exact wording of the policy, but if it is, then it would explain why a planning inspector didn't attach much weight to it and allowed your neighbour's extension.

vet88 said:

This was brought up in the planning inspector's report for the neighbour's extension, but for some reason they decided that a previous extension on the house was built before 1974, when I know it was built in the 80s and I have an aerial photo to prove it.

I'm at a disadvantage not having seen the inspector's report, but it is possible what really went on here is that there was a previous extension, built before 1974, and that was demolished before the 1980's extension was built.  Then the argument is whether a historic (but no longer present) extension/part of the dwelling should be counted as part of the original 1974 dwelling.

The bottom line is the planning inspector would also have to consider other material issues - not just this policy - in deciding whether or not an extension >50% is acceptable development.

vet88 said:

From my dealings with the planners I am sure they can be bribed, one virtually admitted it to me and I also know an ex-builder who says he personally delivered a large bag full of cash to a planning department to get one of their developments approved.

People make all sorts of claims about their ability to bribe officials.  There was some truth in it many years ago, but it doesn't represent the situation today.

The builder's story lacks credibility IMV, because if you were going to bribe an officer then you wouldn't do it by delivering a 'large bag of cash' to the planning department.  It would be far too obvious and excessively risky for the individual(s) involved.  If the builder's claim related to meeting a planning officer in a car park, a pub, or on a golf course then I might attach a little more weight to it.

On the other hand, it could be the story has got a little twisted over time.  Developers do sometimes need to pay local authorities large amounts of money to get developments approved - e.g. a S106 contribution.  The norm would be to make that payment by BACS or cheque, but I do know of cases where a S106 contribution has been made in cash delivered to a local authority cashier's desk.  However, it is important to appreciate that although some people might refer to that as a 'bribe' in a colloquial sense, it would in fact be a perfectly lawful and proper payment made to secure a planning consent.

In any case, as your neighbour got his extension approved on appeal, it means the local planners would have refused it.  And therefore the implication of your claim is the neighbour successfully 'bribed' an independent planning inspector - appointed by the Secretary of State - and acting in a quasi-judicial role.  That's a quite remarkable claim to make, and if true it must have cost the neighbour an absolute fortune.

diystarter7

vet88 said:

I do actually know quite a bit about the local planning rules as I had a very long fight with the planners myself.

The local rule says that no extension can exceed 50% of the original footprint of the house on the 1st of April 1974 (I think that is the date) and lots of local people have had their extensions turned down or been told to alter their plans because of it. This was brought up in the planning inspector's report for the neighbour's extension, but for some reason they decided that a previous extension on the house was built before 1974, when I know it was built in the 80s and I have an aerial photo to prove it. 

From my dealings with the planners I am sure they can be bribed, one virtually admitted it to me and I also know an ex-builder who says he personally delivered a large bag full of cash to a planning department to get one of their developments approved.

Like any profession, people can be bribed and that is a fact of life.

I've noted rather than be "bribed" it was more a case of being nice, polite, and flirty often helps with some  but again you get that in all professions.

Where I worked some years ago and when I met customers face to face or on the phone and who were nasty, rude, unreasonable, obnoxious, I'd rigidly apply the rules and just told them no. Where they were nice, polite etc, I'd apply the rules in the same way but take a lot more care and  kindness and they often appreciated that.

There was a massive development in a back garden of a house about ten doors from us a few years ago and we all thought who, what the heck approved that and we could get nowhere but the developer was a greed little.. and made it even bigger than the plans. Then taking the p he advertised on Airbnb to earn extra cash, that was his downfall as I and others collected the evidence and insisted the planners visited and the place was levelled within a few weeks of the judgment passing against her.

Something I aspire to but got things going on is buying a detached house with a very long garden and even if those behind it made something nasty I'd just stick up those lovely connifers.

Section62

diystarter7 said:

There was a massive development in a back garden of a house about ten doors from us a few years ago and we all thought who, what the heck approved that and we could get nowhere but the developer was a greed little.. and made it even bigger than the plans. Then taking the p he advertised on Airbnb to earn extra cash, that was his downfall as I and others collected the evidence and insisted the planners visited and the place was levelled within a few weeks of the judgment passing against her.

BiB1 - All you needed to do was look on the Council's website and study the planning consent documents.  The answer to your query is public information.

BiB2 - What "judgment" was that? And how long was it between the planner's visit and "the judgement"?

vet88

Section 62 wrote:

I'm at a disadvantage not having seen the inspector's report, but it is possible what really went on here is that there was a previous extension, built before 1974, and that was demolished before the 1980's extension was built.  Then the argument is whether a historic (but no longer present) extension/part of the dwelling should be counted as part of the original 1974 dwelling.

What really got me about this whole issue is that the inspector's report stated that a neighbour - me, had raised the issue that this new extension exceeded the 50% rule. However, he deemed the previous extension to be included in the original footprint.  He said that no one knew when the old extension had been built, but it looked old and tatty so he assumed it was older than 1974, but this extension was built legally with planning consent, so the council must have a record of the date of the planning application for the old extension. Saying they had no idea when it was built seemed very suspicious to me. Of course they knew when it was built and there was no previous extension on the building before that one.

Bendy_House

vet88 said:

Section 62 wrote:

I'm at a disadvantage not having seen the inspector's report, but it is possible what really went on here is that there was a previous extension, built before 1974, and that was demolished before the 1980's extension was built.  Then the argument is whether a historic (but no longer present) extension/part of the dwelling should be counted as part of the original 1974 dwelling.

What really got me about this whole issue is that the inspector's report stated that a neighbour - me, had raised the issue that this new extension exceeded the 50% rule. However, he deemed the previous extension to be included in the original footprint.  He said that no one knew when the old extension had been built, but it looked old and tatty so he assumed it was older than 1974, but this extension was built legally with planning consent, so the council must have a record of the date of the planning application for the old extension. Saying they had no idea when it was built seemed very suspicious to me. Of course they knew when it was built and there was no previous extension on the building before that one.

Yes, these things can be galling. Most folk abide by the rules, but a small number take the piddle. Grrrr. But we do live in borisian times.

Retrospective planning enforcement is generally 4 years, so what your neighbour has done is most likely a fait accompli? But, IF it's as you say (and we don't know), then it gives an idea of what your neighb is like. So, you may need to be more firm and resilient when it comes to this 'boundary' issue.

1) DECIDE what YOU will accept, depending on various scenarios. (Eg, if the neighb is 'genuinely' conciliatory (prepared to be contrite, and put future decisions in writing), or a complete 'ole; "Too bludy late now, pal. Why didn't you say summat... It's a bludy - literal - jungle oot there..."

2) Do your research; what IS the true boundary, and how can you prove it. This should NOT be difficult. If it is, then you have released one set of buckshot into one foot.

If you could come back on here with answers/decisions on these two points, then perhaps we can advise further.