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

BunnyBurrow

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?

These are my thoughts exactly. The planning application is publicly available on the islington council site.

From what I have read, it does not make clear at all whether they intend to make use of my wall or just build directly adjacent to it. But I agree with you, surely they can't just a) use my wall without my consent or b) build directly up against it as they would have to leave a gap for maintainence. Any gap at all would render their plan far too narrow as it is arguably too narrow as it is. I may have mentioned before, I feel they are shoe-horning this basement in so that it becomes 3 storeys and increases the internal area (to 62sqm) which would be way under minimum reqs (of 58sqm) if it was only 2 storeys.

I've no idea about valuation impact etc, but I know that this (devaluation of my property) is apparently not an acceptable reason for objection.

However, I do feel that this wall issue, should I refuse permission to use my wall, which I will, makes their entire plan unworkable.

nyermen

Assume the comment earlier about checking for your right of ways etc, didn't come to anything.

One comment - this discussion is unique enough to be identifiable, and there's a chance that the other party(ies) may have read this thread.  Something for OP to bear in mind.

Section62

BunnyBurrow said:

These are my thoughts exactly. The planning application is publicly available on the islington council site ...

...just be aware the forum team have been removing posts that identify someone's property.  You might want to edit that to remove the application reference and let us work it out for ourselves.

DE_612183

They have spent a lot of money on the planning exercise - I'd be tempted to contact the writers of the SMS report and ask the questions you are asking here.

As others have said i think relying on planning permission being refused is a bit short sighted.

Section62

DE_612183 said:

They have spent a lot of money on the planning exercise - I'd be tempted to contact the writers of the SMS report and ask the questions you are asking here.

As others have said i think relying on planning permission being refused is a bit short sighted.

Yes, the applicants have had pre-application advice and done their homework.  Given the location a compact dwelling isn't totally unreasonable, and possibly gives more living space than some of the other dwellings in the area.

As the site is currently developed with a car garage (which serves no real purpose now) it isn't a case of squeezing a house onto a sliver of garden.

I suspect any issues the planners might have will be in the details of the design, not the principle of building, and given the outlay already it wouldn't surprise me if the developers are happy to make any design amendments the planners want.

I think I'd be working on the assumption this will probably be approved, and therefore be working towards the least worst outcome.

FreeBear

Having read through the Design & Access statement, it would appear that the architects are proposing to utilise the side wall of the end terrace as a party wall. In terms of maintenance, this removes one headache from the OP's property - As things currently stand, it is next to impossible to access the side wall with the garage that is standing there. Should the builders stick with using reclaimed London Stocks as the facing bricks on the front & side elevations, the structure shouldn't look too far out of place.

Small niggles about gardens & biodiversity - A 2.8m² courtyard at the rear is only going to be ~1m deep. Hardly enough room for a couple of small plant pots, and not a lot else. Really not big enough to put a table & chair (note singular chair). An 8.6m² front garden, once space is allocated for paving, bins, and bicycle storage, won't have much space left for anything more than a handful of weeds. Certainly not enough room for any biodiversity of note.

Based on the fact that previous applications for micro-homes have been approved in recent years, I suspect this one will get passed too. About the only ground for objection I can see is that of overlooking from the roof terrace. But being at the front, I don't this will carry much weight. There might be some mileage in pointing out the limited daylight in the lower level (basement) room(s) and egress from those rooms in the event of a fire. But this may have been addressed during the pre-planning application.

Perhaps you might get somewhere by objecting to the siting of an ASHP at first floor level - That would put it at roughly the same height as your bedroom windows and could be a source of disruption at night.

ThisIsWeird

Section62 said:

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.

Sigh. 99% assumption and presumption. As sadly quite often.

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

Section62 said:

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.

Sigh. 99% assumption and presumption. As sadly quite often.

Until the OP shared the location it was 100% assumption and presumption.  Now we've got a lot more to work on.

3-bed houses in this street are selling around the £1.5m mark.  A 2-bed leasehold flat sold for something north of £600k a couple of years ago.  If you still think attachment to the party wall difficulties would make the developers walk away without finding a workaround then you probably don't understand inner-London property too well.

Section62

Section62 said:

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?

As the plot has a garage built on it I think the right of way angle is probably unlikely to come up with anything useful - presumably if the garage was owned by the owner of your building then they wouldn't have needed a RoW to make use of it, or to access the rear of the property.

You should still check your deeds (and the neighbours) because if the original owner sold the garage as a potential development site there may be covenants restricting what can be built on it, but possibly also granting a right to the developers to build onto your wall.

DE_612183

I wonder who owned the garage before it was sold to the current owner?