Neighbours extension quality and boundary issues

MattMattMattUK

I would not be happy with that, they have hidden the problem not dealt with it.

YoungBlueEyes

Wow. Well I'm not an expert but I wouldn't be any happier with that than the original wonky nonsense. How can it be allowed to overhang/attach to (?) your property and get signed off?

That's not a solution, that's a variation on a theme. 

CSI_Yorkshire

YoungBlueEyes said:

That's not a solution, that's a variation on a theme. 

Let's correct a dodgy build by hiding it behind dodgy cladding and a massive downpipe.

ThisIsWeird

The original build quality was hellish, and this just hides it. 

But, it's seemingly a fait-accompli, and both Planning and BC are accepting of it? So what are the chances of the OP being able to take successful action? And to do what - have it knocked down and reduced by a foot in width? I can't see it happening.

Galling tho' it most certainly is, any action should have been taken as soon as the wider wall was started, or even before as the founds were being dug - that is when a PWA surveyor should have been insisted on (or at the Planning stage had the OP known). But for some reason that didn't happen.

Provided that gutter performs as it should and there are no issues caused to the OP's house, I suspect the only option now is to accept it. At least the panel hides the ridiculous lack of verticality. Any attempt to take action - which I cannot see succeeding anyway - would just add a 'dispute' to your agony.

Sorry there are such 'oles, but there are in plenty.

Mistral001

It looks like the brickwork was built overhand.  In other words the bricklayer was standing on the inside of the wall when builing the outer leaf of brickwork.  To get a good finish the bricklayer needs to be standing on the outside of the wall when laying the bricks.  

YoungBlueEyes

I really hope the OP comes back to say - ok I should’ve made more fuss in the beginning but I didn’t and now look where I am. What can be done please cos I don’t want any of there! 

It can’t be right that it has to stay up now and OP has to just accept it because it’s been signed off? Surely not? 

FreeBear

ThisIsWeird said: Provided that gutter performs as it should and there are no issues caused to the OP's house

I'd want to see some flashing (Code 4, or even Code 6 lead) to bridge the gap between roof & wall. That would ensure that rain hitting the OPs wall won't run down in to the gap and cause damp problems.

Going down the legal route could cost £40K and upwards with no guarantee of a satisfactory outcome. I very much doubt you'd get a judge to order demolition & rebuild for a minor breach of planning.

CSI_Yorkshire

YoungBlueEyes said:

It can’t be right that it has to stay up now and OP has to just accept it because it’s been signed off? Surely not? 

Why not?

If the work now has planning permission and passes building control, on what grounds would you get a judge to order demolition?

YoungBlueEyes

Better say I’m presuming it’s at least overhanging the boundary if not actually attached. 

I don’t know on which grounds CSI tbh, but it can’t be right that your neighbour can build over the boundary, without permission, because they want their house a foot wider. And you have to swallow a big legal bill, with no certainty of outcome, just because it’s been signed off? 

I’m obviously way off beam here. I would have hoped that you’d get a say in whether someone can overstep your boundary, and potentially cause you/your house problems. I don’t care how far along you’ve got, if I haven’t agreed to it then I don’t want it there.

Edit - overstep your and their boundary. 

Ksw3

At what point are these houses no longer detached? Would a mortgage lender want to know what was happening?