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

silvercar

ThisIsWeird said:

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?

That is the neighbours trump card, if you don’t give me permission to attach, I’ll build as near to the boundary as I can, which will leave you a wall you can’t maintain. And yes, legally the owner of an adjacent plot can build to their boundary, subject to party wall agreements and planning permission. The logic is that the owner of the original end of terrace decided to build to the edge of their plot and so took the risk. That why often an end of terrace will have room for an alley way at the side of their property, gaining rear access without traipsing through the house as well as enabling maintenance. 

So there’s a stand off.
1. New home applies for PP to build to boundary.
2. EoT denies rights to join on (and there is going to be something that isn’t quite up to the boundary, or guttering etc or needs some of OPs surface wall removing to attach - you can’t just build a wall abutting without joining in some way)
3. New home owner either resubmits with an even narrower house and argues it is smaller than what was granted so should be allowed or builds the narrower version anyway and then applies for permitted development on the ground of the previously granted PP. This would leave a wall that can’t be maintained. Moreover a gap that gathers debris over the years and could cause damp issues.

DE_612183

I can't understand why the OP has not engaged with the owner of the plot next door - at least if you have that conversation you'll know exactly where you stand and what if any applicable resolution can be made.

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

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'?

But in reality it isn't much of an 'ace card' because it is fairly unlikely that the planning consent would be refused for the sake of an inch or so.

"Every application on its own merits" is the fundamental principle of planning decisions.  If the council's planning guidance says the minimum floor area for a new dwelling is Xm^2 then they are likely to be sucessfully appealed if their only reason for refusal is that the proposal is a small margin less than that figure.

This application will either be refused because it is a clear 'no-go', or allowed despite any minor deviations from the local plan.  Without more information about the plans it is a coin-toss which it will be.

Planning authorities are under huge pressure to allow more new homes to be constructed.  And the kind of figures being talked about won't be delivered by building on green fields alone.  Councils will need to be more opportunistic and accept non-conventional proposals... it isn't like the existing norms haven't been challenged before.

And then it comes back to what these investors will do with the land if they don't get consent for a dwelling, and whether that use will be better or worse than having a 'grand designs'-type house built on it.

Section62

BunnyBurrow said:

I live in an end of terrace victorian property. A couple bought a small plot of land 3.2m wide immediately next to my property 5 years ago (as previous owner of the land died)...

OP, just going back to this point... do you know the background and history to how this plot of land came into existence?  What was its purpose and what has it been used for in the past.

Have you checked your deeds (and the neighbours) to see if any of you have a right of way over it?

Newbie_John

DE_612183 said:

I can't understand why the OP has not engaged with the owner of the plot next door - at least if you have that conversation you'll know exactly where you stand and what if any applicable resolution can be made.

Maybe to first just understand what's possible? Rather than unconsciously agree to something they will regret?
Tbh I find that case very strange, the land is 3.2m wide, the house inside would be 2m wide, unless it's super hot location in central London.. 

FreeBear

ThisIsWeird said: 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'?

Having seen a number of buildings with 150-300mm gaps between the adjacent walls, I don't think planning would get refused on that point alone.

Flugelhorn

Newbie_John said:

DE_612183 said:

I can't understand why the OP has not engaged with the owner of the plot next door - at least if you have that conversation you'll know exactly where you stand and what if any applicable resolution can be made.

Maybe to first just understand what's possible? Rather than unconsciously agree to something they will regret?
Tbh I find that case very strange, the land is 3.2m wide, the house inside would be 2m wide, unless it's super hot location in central London.. 

is it actually a new dwelling or an extension?

Section62

FreeBear said:

ThisIsWeird said: 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'?

Having seen a number of buildings with 150-300mm gaps between the adjacent walls, I don't think planning would get refused on that point alone.

I agree.  The view from the planners would probably be 'tough'... allow them to build as a party wall and then you won't have that problem.

ThisIsWeird

silvercar said:

That is the neighbours trump card, if you don’t give me permission to attach, I’ll build as near to the boundary as I can, which will leave you a wall you can’t maintain. And yes, legally the owner of an adjacent plot can build to their boundary, subject to party wall agreements and planning permission. The logic is that the owner of the original end of terrace decided to build to the edge of their plot and so took the risk. That why often an end of terrace will have room for an alley way at the side of their property, gaining rear access without traipsing through the house as well as enabling maintenance. 

So there’s a stand off.
1. New home applies for PP to build to boundary.
2. EoT denies rights to join on (and there is going to be something that isn’t quite up to the boundary, or guttering etc or needs some of OPs surface wall removing to attach - you can’t just build a wall abutting without joining in some way)
3. New home owner either resubmits with an even narrower house and argues it is smaller than what was granted so should be allowed or builds the narrower version anyway and then applies for permitted development on the ground of the previously granted PP. This would leave a wall that can’t be maintained. Moreover a gap that gathers debris over the years and could cause damp issues.

As I said, 'provided'...

And if a resubmitted PP or appeal somehow allowed a super-slim detached property, BB will be no worse off than she currently is - the neighbour will still, almost without doubt, want to 'attach'.

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

silvercar said:

That is the neighbours trump card, if you don’t give me permission to attach, I’ll build as near to the boundary as I can, which will leave you a wall you can’t maintain. And yes, legally the owner of an adjacent plot can build to their boundary, subject to party wall agreements and planning permission. The logic is that the owner of the original end of terrace decided to build to the edge of their plot and so took the risk. That why often an end of terrace will have room for an alley way at the side of their property, gaining rear access without traipsing through the house as well as enabling maintenance. 

So there’s a stand off.
1. New home applies for PP to build to boundary.
2. EoT denies rights to join on (and there is going to be something that isn’t quite up to the boundary, or guttering etc or needs some of OPs surface wall removing to attach - you can’t just build a wall abutting without joining in some way)
3. New home owner either resubmits with an even narrower house and argues it is smaller than what was granted so should be allowed or builds the narrower version anyway and then applies for permitted development on the ground of the previously granted PP. This would leave a wall that can’t be maintained. Moreover a gap that gathers debris over the years and could cause damp issues.

As I said, 'provided'...

And if a resubmitted PP or appeal somehow allowed a super-slim detached property, BB will be no worse off than she currently is - the neighbour will still, almost without doubt, want to 'attach'.

Why?  If the neighbour has got planning consent for a new dwelling with an air gap between it and the neighbour then that is what they would need to build, or else go back to the council for approval of an amended plan.

If the OP is then willing to allow the new dwelling to attach then the developer has to weigh up the risk of building not in accordance with the approved plan, or risk delays and getting a 'no' by going back to alter the plans.

The fundamental here is that so long as the existing structure (including foundations) is not harmed by construction, the neighbour can build as close to the boundary as they can get away with, and for all practical purposes it will probably appear as though the new build is attached to the OP's property.

...Bearing in mind we still don't know whether the developer's current plans involve any attachment at all.