Query about New Build Driveway …

MultiFuelBurner

I am sure you can come to a compromise with the builder with the grass area to the left and for them to tarmac that area to make your parking easier.

LightFlare

MultiFuelBurner said:

I am sure you can come to a compromise with the builder with the grass area to the left and for them to tarmac that area to make your parking easier.

Agree - even if they won’t tarmac it, it should t be a big job to remove 2-3ft of turf and drop some gravel down.

Maybe not the ideal solution but possibly the most pragmatic 

Mutton_Geoff

Shame the garage encroaches on the neighbours garden, no scope to build a bigger garage. I reckon they planned to squeeze another house in there which is why plot 214 was scrubbed.

Deetyler14

I’ve just been to the sales office … they are still looking into it - I’ve asked to see to scale plans and requested what their definition of ‘double’ is - let’s see what they say. It’s just a foot the one way if they could just cut out some of the garden 

TheJP

Was there any mention of dimensions in the brochure? If the developer defines a double parking space as the width the driveway is built then they have not been deceiving.

This is one of the reasons i wont buy a modern new build house, we viewed one and parked on the single drive between my house and the neighbours wall. Neither me or my wife could get out of the car it was that narrow.

Section62

LightFlare said:

MultiFuelBurner said:

I am sure you can come to a compromise with the builder with the grass area to the left and for them to tarmac that area to make your parking easier.

Agree - even if they won’t tarmac it, it should t be a big job to remove 2-3ft of turf and drop some gravel down.

Maybe not the ideal solution but possibly the most pragmatic 

Four potential issues with this -

1) Highway authorities generally don't like gravel next to roads (for safety reasons) so if the roadway is likely to be adopted then this modification could be problematic.

2) It appears the driveway has been constructed in accordance with the plan - adding another 2-3ft of width to the driveway or changing the grass to gravel may need the consent of the planning authority.

3) The angle of the wall means the extra width of the driveway won't be full length.  The planning/highway authority may have concerns that a vehicle parked using the extra width area may then overhang the road (the minimum bay-length standard is designed to avoid that happening).  I suspect the reason the OP's garage awkwardly intrudes into the garden of Plot 215 is because setting the garage back like that was the only way of achieving the minimum bay length.

4) It isn't clear who (will) own the land that needs to be altered.  If the grass (or part of it) is to be part of the estate grounds or Highway then an alteration to the legal boundary would need to be done properly.

Grumpy_chap

Where is the boundary of the OP's land?



I think the OP owns the wall.  It has been built inside the extents of the garage wall and one has to assume that the OP owns the garage wall.

If the OP took the wall down, that would be another 8" / 200 mm.

I then note that the eaves project beyond the side of the garage wall (looks like another 8") plus the guttering (another 4") so that could be another 12" / 300 mm that is within the OP's land.  It would be very bad form for the OP to build (or have built on their behalf) the garage such that the eaves and gutter overhang the boundary of adjoining land.

The OP may even own more that allows for maintenance access to the garage guttering, though I doubt it in this case.

Anyway, if the OP owns the wall and the line project forwards from the outside of the guttering, that looks like it could be another 500 mm in total.  Could the OP extend the tarmac accordingly to the boundary of what they appear to own in that case?

Section62

Grumpy_chap said:

I think the OP owns the wall.  It has been built inside the extents of the garage wall and one has to assume that the OP owns the garage wall.

If the OP took the wall down, that would be another 8" / 200 mm.

The OP wouldn't really gain much by doing this.  They can't really park on top of where the wall is without risking going over the edge and damaging their car.  The wall is there for a reason.

Furthermore, depending on the fall of the paved area (difficult to tell from the pictures) the wall may also be helping to channel surface water away from the neighbour and down to the channel drain.  Removing the wall may lead to surface water draining from the OP's drive onto the neighbour's - which is unlikely to improve neighbourly relationships.

The only real gain by reducing the height of the wall would be the ability to swing a car door open over the neighbour's land... which again may not be a neighbourly thing to do.

Grumpy_chap said:

I then note that the eaves project beyond the side of the garage wall (looks like another 8") plus the guttering (another 4") so that could be another 12" / 300 mm that is within the OP's land.  It would be very bad form for the OP to build (or have built on their behalf) the garage such that the eaves and gutter overhang the boundary of adjoining land.

The OP may even own more that allows for maintenance access to the garage guttering, though I doubt it in this case.

This is a norm for new-build development.  The traditional idea of legal boundaries and keeping 'your' property well within them has ceased to apply. Eaves and gutters overhanging a neighbour's land is now commonplace.  It certainly shouldn't be interpreted as demonstrating ownership of more land than the sales contract specifies.

Grumpy_chap said:

Anyway, if the OP owns the wall and the line project forwards from the outside of the guttering, that looks like it could be another 500 mm in total.  Could the OP extend the tarmac accordingly to the boundary of what they appear to own in that case?

They would need to check the ownership, then check for covenants and planning conditions regarding alterations of this type.

It may appear to be trivial, but if the neighbour gets grumpy about having the OP's car parked right up to the boundary then they could use anything and everything to make life difficult.

From a practical point, parking a car close to a drop like there would be if the wall was lowered is a bad idea, as it is very easy for people to open a car door and get out without noticing (or remembering) the ground is lower than you'd normally expect - this kind of situation can be an accident waiting to happen.

Deetyler14

so the developers have called me after having their meeting today… have offered to slab some of the left hand side to allow more space …. Reasonable offer? 

Section62

Deetyler14 said:

so the developers have called me after having their meeting today… have offered to slab some of the left hand side to allow more space …. Reasonable offer? 

I'd say yes, provided you own the land and the developer gives you something in writing to confirm you won't have problems with planning/highways in the future.

The developer will aim for the simplest solution possible - they won't necessarily care if you have issues with officialdom at a later date.