Neighbour's planning application for new build requires underpinning of my wall!

Doozergirl

EssexHebridean said:

My suspicion is that 4 separate objections from near neighbours ought to be sufficient to get the application turned down - I'll cross fingers for you. 

That simply isn't how the planning system works.  A large number of objections may see the application sent to planning committee rather than decided by a planning officer under delegated powers, but the committee cannot refuse it for any other reason that a solid one based on planning legislation, not depth of emotion, or it would simply be overturned at appeal. 

If what you say was true, nothing would ever be built, such is the level of nimbyism.  

incus432

I am absolutely no expert in this but I am sure I read a case recently where someone excavating a bssement intruded into the neighbour's space and this was deemed trespass and was heavily penalised.

I find it hard to believe this application is likely to get approval

[Deleted User]

I don't know anything about construction or much about the law regarding construction, but if I were in that position I would refuse permission for anything and everything, as much as is possible within the law. My interaction would be limited to outright refusal of anything that the other party suggested, and to retaining all documentation.

What I do know is that you must declare underpinning when selling the house. That's going to reduce either its value, its appeal, or both.

subjecttocontract

Section62 said:

ellBunnyBurrow said:

subjecttocontract said:

Surely if underpinning your wall is necessary for their development to take place you hold all the cards. Would you agree to the underpinning if you received a payment ? If so how much would persuade you to agree ?

Surely insurers & mortgage lenders might be entitled agree or disagree with proposed works.

Underpinning may put off future buyers of your property.

Yeah, I'm thinking that I should hold the cards. And no, I wouldn't agree to a payment. I don't want them to build, for several reasons, not least because it will look awful and subject us to a year long building site next door.

But my main concern is any long term effects of them directly impacting my place with the underpinning which I believe could impact, property value (it might scare people off as people associate underpinning with subsidence), insurance and mortgage implications, and genuinely it may cause problems with subsidence in the long term and I would much rather leave it untouched.

TBH I'm not sure you do.  My understanding of the Party Wall Act is it gives the neighbour a right to build up to the boundary, including attaching to your building if necessary.  To you it gives the right to have a PW surveyor acting on your behalf to make sure the work doesn't cause damage to your property (both during, and post-completion).  The cards you hold are only the ability to cost them more (by having a PWS of your choice) and that ultimately damage caused to your property attributed to the work will be rectified at their expense.

However, my knowledge of the PWA is a bit sketchy so I could be wrong.  We could really do with @Doozergirl dropping by to comment as her knowledge of the PWA is the best around here.

I don't think the 'underpinning' should necessarily impact on the value of the property, especially if the PWS helps you by characterising it as "a new foundation associated with adjacent construction" rather than as 'underpinning'.  It should be clear to any surveyor acting for a future buyer of your property that this work was done - in accordance with the PWA - solely for the purpose of allowing excavation and constructing the adjacent property.

What may affect the property's value more is that if they attach to your property you'll no longer be 'end of terrace', but rather just plain 'terrace'.  But AFAIK there is nothing you can do about that.

I'd also suggest you may need to accept the principle that someone will eventually build something on the land - it has value and someone will want to turn that value into a profit.  So at least consider the possibility of working with the owners to get the least worst outcome for you.  That might include you and the neighbour on the other side agreeing to buy and split the land between you if the planning consent does get refused.  Owning the adjacent land is the one sure way of making sure nobody else builds on it.

Well if as you say, the developer has a right to build up to the boundary including attaching to the OP's wall then I dont understand why we are debating the merits of the planning application ?

Section62

[Deleted User] said:

I don't know anything about construction or much about the law regarding construction, but if I were in that position I would refuse permission for anything and everything, as much as is possible within the law. My interaction would be limited to outright refusal of anything that the other party suggested, and to retaining all documentation.
...

The problem with that strategy is if the building next door becomes inevitable then refusing to enage may lead to you having a worse outcome than might be achieved through working with them.  The phrase about noses and faces is relevant here.

Whilst objecting during the planning stage is likely to be sensible, if the neighbours get planning consent then that would be a good time to drop the objection stance and use the system to get the least worst outcome.

[Deleted User]

As I said, I don't know much about planning or development law, but Claude does.


Is it legal for a developer to build a house attached to the end terrace of a row, without the consent of the existing house owner? That is to say, the existing house that had one immediate neighbour would now have two. This is in the UK. Assume that the land has already been bought and is owned by the developer.

In the UK, a developer generally cannot build a house physically attached to an existing end-of-terrace property without the consent of that property's owner, even if they own the adjacent land.

This is because:

1. Party Wall Act requirements: Building on or at the boundary with a neighboring property requires serving a Party Wall Notice and potentially entering into a Party Wall Agreement with the existing homeowner.
2. Trespass concerns: Physically attaching to an existing structure without permission would likely constitute trespass.
3. Planning permission: While planning permission might be granted for development on the adjacent land, this wouldn't override the need for consent to physically connect to the existing structure.

The developer has these options:

• Negotiate with the homeowner for consent
• Build a detached property on their land
• Consider a semi-detached design with a small gap between properties

I recommend consulting a UK property solicitor for specific advice regarding your situation, as local planning regulations and the specific details of the properties involved will be important factors.

Doozergirl

[Deleted User] said:

As I said, I don't know much about planning or development law, but Claude does.


Is it legal for a developer to build a house attached to the end terrace of a row, without the consent of the existing house owner? That is to say, the existing house that had one immediate neighbour would now have two. This is in the UK. Assume that the land has already been bought and is owned by the developer.

In the UK, a developer generally cannot build a house physically attached to an existing end-of-terrace property without the consent of that property's owner, even if they own the adjacent land.

This is because:

1. Party Wall Act requirements: Building on or at the boundary with a neighboring property requires serving a Party Wall Notice and potentially entering into a Party Wall Agreement with the existing homeowner.
2. Trespass concerns: Physically attaching to an existing structure without permission would likely constitute trespass.
3. Planning permission: While planning permission might be granted for development on the adjacent land, this wouldn't override the need for consent to physically connect to the existing structure.

The developer has these options:

• Negotiate with the homeowner for consent
• Build a detached property on their land
• Consider a semi-detached design with a small gap between properties

I recommend consulting a UK property solicitor for specific advice regarding your situation, as local planning regulations and the specific details of the properties involved will be important factors.

It seems that my post was ignored even though it is arguably more relevant to the OP than Claude's answer.  

[Deleted User]

Doozergirl said:

It seems that my post was ignored even though it is arguably more relevant to the OP than Claude's answer.  

It's a tough world, that's for sure.

Section62

subjecttocontract said:

Section62 said:

ellBunnyBurrow said:

subjecttocontract said:

Surely if underpinning your wall is necessary for their development to take place you hold all the cards. Would you agree to the underpinning if you received a payment ? If so how much would persuade you to agree ?

Surely insurers & mortgage lenders might be entitled agree or disagree with proposed works.

Underpinning may put off future buyers of your property.

Yeah, I'm thinking that I should hold the cards. And no, I wouldn't agree to a payment. I don't want them to build, for several reasons, not least because it will look awful and subject us to a year long building site next door.

But my main concern is any long term effects of them directly impacting my place with the underpinning which I believe could impact, property value (it might scare people off as people associate underpinning with subsidence), insurance and mortgage implications, and genuinely it may cause problems with subsidence in the long term and I would much rather leave it untouched.

TBH I'm not sure you do.  My understanding of the Party Wall Act is it gives the neighbour a right to build up to the boundary, including attaching to your building if necessary.  To you it gives the right to have a PW surveyor acting on your behalf to make sure the work doesn't cause damage to your property (both during, and post-completion).  The cards you hold are only the ability to cost them more (by having a PWS of your choice) and that ultimately damage caused to your property attributed to the work will be rectified at their expense.

However, my knowledge of the PWA is a bit sketchy so I could be wrong.  We could really do with @Doozergirl dropping by to comment as her knowledge of the PWA is the best around here.

I don't think the 'underpinning' should necessarily impact on the value of the property, especially if the PWS helps you by characterising it as "a new foundation associated with adjacent construction" rather than as 'underpinning'.  It should be clear to any surveyor acting for a future buyer of your property that this work was done - in accordance with the PWA - solely for the purpose of allowing excavation and constructing the adjacent property.

What may affect the property's value more is that if they attach to your property you'll no longer be 'end of terrace', but rather just plain 'terrace'.  But AFAIK there is nothing you can do about that.

I'd also suggest you may need to accept the principle that someone will eventually build something on the land - it has value and someone will want to turn that value into a profit.  So at least consider the possibility of working with the owners to get the least worst outcome for you.  That might include you and the neighbour on the other side agreeing to buy and split the land between you if the planning consent does get refused.  Owning the adjacent land is the one sure way of making sure nobody else builds on it.

Well if as you say, the developer has a right to build up to the boundary including attaching to the OP's wall then I dont understand why we are debating the merits of the planning application ?

Because the right to build is subject to obtaining planning consent.  If planning is refused then the PWA right to build can't be exercised.

ThisIsWeird

Doozergirl said:

[Deleted User] said:

As I said, I don't know much about planning or development law, but Claude does.


Is it legal for a developer to build a house attached to the end terrace of a row, without the consent of the existing house owner? That is to say, the existing house that had one immediate neighbour would now have two. This is in the UK. Assume that the land has already been bought and is owned by the developer.

In the UK, a developer generally cannot build a house physically attached to an existing end-of-terrace property without the consent of that property's owner, even if they own the adjacent land.

This is because:

1. Party Wall Act requirements: Building on or at the boundary with a neighboring property requires serving a Party Wall Notice and potentially entering into a Party Wall Agreement with the existing homeowner.
2. Trespass concerns: Physically attaching to an existing structure without permission would likely constitute trespass.
3. Planning permission: While planning permission might be granted for development on the adjacent land, this wouldn't override the need for consent to physically connect to the existing structure.

The developer has these options:

• Negotiate with the homeowner for consent
• Build a detached property on their land
• Consider a semi-detached design with a small gap between properties

I recommend consulting a UK property solicitor for specific advice regarding your situation, as local planning regulations and the specific details of the properties involved will be important factors.

It seems that my post was ignored even though it is arguably more relevant to the OP than Claude's answer.  

Lol - that made me chuckle :-)
If what you say is correct - that you can simply refuse to become 'attached' - and I have no reason to doubt it, then Bunny does hold the ace card, provided Planning would refuse the presumably-resulting too-narrow build.
Do you have sight of their plans, BB? Any chance we can have a look? Seems strange it doesn't make clear the intention - or not - to attach.
If, however, the neighbour is given PP to build leaving a tiny gap, which would undoubtedly cause Bunny significant issues in the future, could she do anything about this? She'd no longer have access to maintain the exterior of her Victorian property.  Or would Planning (or anything else) consider this 'tough'?

I'd certainly not be a happy bunny in BB's situation; it's all negative for her, and it would require seriously commensurate compensation to allow it. No longer end-of-terrace. Risk of the 'underpinning' detail worrying potential buyers (tho' I guess it shouldn't). And a presumed carbuncle at the end of a presumably elegant Viccie terrace. How much could this devalue BB's property by? 10%? 15%? 
BB, assuming your eot house is a similar size to your current mt neighbour, how much more do you reckon yours is worth due to that factor?
And, do you know how much that plot sold for?