Neighour's extension on my land

VictorMeldew

His response: - (stop me if this is getting too long winded or taking up too much of the server space!!)

Mr xxxx

I apologize if I have spoken to you previously, I have no recollection
of such a conversation on that date probably due to the number of phone
calls dealt with on a daily and weekly basis and have checked the phone
records for that date but cannot find the call. I am happy to take your
word that the call took place.

I inspected the property and took photographs both before and after
construction, as I have to submit such information to the Household
Planning Manager - xxxxx xxxxxxx - who ultimately decides whether or
not my recommendation is correct.

With regards to the application, a letter was received from yourself on
18th March objecting to the proposal on the grounds that the
introduction of a first floor balcony would lead to a loss of privacy to
yourself and your property, and that the extension would lead to a loss
of light to your rear windows. Following the site inspection, I, as the
case officer felt that the balcony would indeed be an invasion of
privacy to properties at the rear, and advised the applicant to remove
that element of the proposal, otherwise the application would likely be
refused. This was agreed with and that element withdrawn from the
proposal.

The second reason was assessed, and I considered that as your property
has an existing two-storey extension to the side, there already was a
loss of light to your rear garden area that you were prepared to accept
by the construction of the extension, but this could not be considered a
reason to prejudice the ability of your next door neighbour to extend
their property. You have no windows in the side elevation of the
extension, but due to the orientation of the properties the first floor
window to the rear will look out onto the side elevation of the proposed
2-storey extension at No.4. However, it was considered that there was
still sufficient light entering the rear garden area of your property,
that it would not be detrimental. In a similar vein, we would not have
refused consent for your extension due to the fact that there was a
bathroom window in the side elevation of no.4

The single-storey element of the extension is considered to have no
impact upon your property as there is a 1.8 metre high fence that
divides the properties and the extension is 2.5 metres in height.
Therefore 0.7 metres in height of the extension will be visible as well
as the roof structure. In planning terms, there is no instance in which
this can be considered to cause overlooking or overshadowing.

In reference to Permitted Development Rights, you are able to build up
to a volume of 50 cubic metres of extension before planning consent is
required, as long as the structure is no more than 4 metres in height.
This is why consent will not have been required for the single-storey
element. It is the two-storey element that requires approval due to its
volume and height.

At no point in your letter did you mention any issue regarding
boundaries of the properties, even after you had inspected the plans.
However, when development is located on, or near to, a party boundary,
an informative is attached to any planning consent highlighting the need
to respect and ensure party boundaries are adhered to. Unfortunately,
this is not enforceable under Planning Law but is a civil matter. If the
matter had been brought to the attention of the Planning Department when
the footings were being dug, perhaps something could have been done at
the time, but the matter would now have to be dealt with under Civil
Law.

I am sorry you are not happy with the planning decision, but it is
considered the proposal fully accords with planning policy; when we
received your letter, we acted on your concerns by ensuring the removal
the problematic element of the first floor balcony, and following the
site inspection made a reasoned assessment that it would be difficult to
justify any loss of light to your rear garden, when you yourself had
severely reduced the amount of light to your garden area through the
erection of your own two-storey extension. If I had adopted an apathetic
attitude towards the application as you claim, I would hardly have
ensured the removal of the balcony element as you requested.

I have included xxx xxxxxx in the response to your email, as he will
investigate your concerns.

Regards


Again planning_officer or anyone else, I'd love to hear your opinion on this.

How am I meant to complain about the boundaries when there is no diagram of how the extension relates to the boundaries on the application? All there was was a land registry diagram, front, side and rear elevations? No dimensions are mentioned anywhere. I am so annoyed about this.

guppy

Victor

Go and have a look at the whole planning file at the council if you haven't already. Normally the applicant has to show the relevant land, and outline the site in red. Any other land they own adjacent is coloured blue.


The planning officer sounds slippery. But at the end of the day, I don't think the planning system is going to help you that much anyway. The council have discretion over what to enforce, and in planning terms, this is pretty minor. People get away with much, much worse on a regular basis, outrageous but sadly true.

As someone said a lot of posts back, try and calm down and work out what you actually want to achieve. Then consider your options and how realistic/cost effective they are.

If I were you, I'd want to hire a digger and knock the offending extension down, but sadly that falls down on the realistic side.

Would you be prepared negotiate to sell a piece of your garden and alter your boundary? Or would this ruin your garden?

Are you prepared to just let it go, or stew at home without doing anything? Some people do. I couldn't.

Do you feel strongly enough to take legal action on the grounds of trespass? Did the surveyor feel you had a good case? Can you afford it/do you want to spend money and time on that?

In my opinion these are the questions you need to consider. By all means crack on with badgering the council, but keep in mind that they aren't going to make your neighbour knock down that extension

Good luck, and you have my sympathy.

planning_officer

VictorMeldew wrote: »

With regards to the application, a letter was received from yourself on
18th March objecting to the proposal on the grounds that the
introduction of a first floor balcony would lead to a loss of privacy to
yourself and your property, and that the extension would lead to a loss
of light to your rear windows. Following the site inspection, I, as the
case officer felt that the balcony would indeed be an invasion of
privacy to properties at the rear, and advised the applicant to remove
that element of the proposal, otherwise the application would likely be
refused. This was agreed with and that element withdrawn from the
proposal.

Well, at least the rear balcony was removed from the proposal - that's a good point!!

VictorMeldew wrote: »

The second reason was assessed, and I considered that as your property has an existing two-storey extension to the side, there already was a loss of light to your rear garden area that you were prepared to accept by the construction of the extension, but this could not be considered a reason to prejudice the ability of your next door neighbour to extend their property.

Eh? That's not a material planning reason for allowing something!!! It probably wouldn't have affected the outcome of the application, but it's annoying that he's defending the decision on this basis!

VictorMeldew wrote: »

However, it was considered that there was
still sufficient light entering the rear garden area of your property, that it would not be detrimental.

Loss of light and whether something looks overbearing or visually intrusive are two completely different things - nowhere does he mention the latter.

VictorMeldew wrote: »

The single-storey element of the extension is considered to have no impact upon your property as there is a 1.8 metre high fence that divides the properties and the extension is 2.5 metres in height.

Again, that's not really the point - the point is that it requires planning permission and is unlawful. That's a fact, which he himself acknowledges. Therefore, they really should be asking for a retrospective application - my Council always would do, we never ever look at something, however minor, and just say 'well it's acceptable' - that's plain lazy. Nevertheless, I take his point about it probably being acceptable due to its low height, so even if your neighbour did submit a retrospective application, it would be approved, so it depends on whether you want to take it further 'out of principle'?

VictorMeldew wrote: »

Therefore 0.7 metres in height of the extension will be visible as well as the roof structure. In planning terms, there is no instance in which this can be considered to cause overlooking or overshadowing.

Again, no reference to whether it would look overbearing or visually intrusive (ok, it wouldn't, but he's not giving the whole story - he's just cherry picking bits to tell you!)

VictorMeldew wrote: »

In reference to Permitted Development Rights, you are able to build up to a volume of 50 cubic metres of extension before planning consent is required, as long as the structure is no more than 4 metres in height. This is why consent will not have been required for the single-storey element. It is the two-storey element that requires approval due to its volume and height.

Wrong - it's actually 70 cu m (unless you live in a conservation area, AONB, National Park, or the dwelling is terraced? I'm assuming it's a semi (if it's terraced, then it's 50 cu m). The reference to 4m in height is not entirely accurate either - it's only relevant if it's also within 2m of the boundary (ok, so it is in this case, but again - he's not really being as accurate as a planning officer should! No officer in my team would be sending those kind of emails!! There are also other criteria other than the 4m height issue, although those aren't really relevant in this case.

But, crucially, I just cannot fathom why he maintains the rear extension is permitted development - it isn't!! If it was built at the same time as the 2 storey extension, or after it, then it cannot possible be.

VictorMeldew wrote: »

However, when development is located on, or near to, a party boundary, an informative is attached to any planning consent highlighting the need to respect and ensure party boundaries are adhered to. Unfortunately, this is not enforceable under Planning Law but is a civil matter.

True. By the way, an informative is a paragraph added to the planning permission document, drawing the applicant's attention to something (it's purely for information, and is not enforceable - unlike conditions attached to planning permission, which are enforceable).

VictorMeldew wrote: »

How am I meant to complain about the boundaries when there is no diagram of how the extension relates to the boundaries on the application? All there was was a land registry diagram, front, side and rear elevations? No dimensions are mentioned anywhere.

There must have been a site plan showing the extension on the ground, in relation to the site boundaries, otherwise the application cannot have been registered in the first place. Without such a plan, the development would not be enforceable. The boundaries may be shown on the ground floor plan, which is sometimes the case - you might want to check that.


The general thrust of what he is saying in his 2 emails is that it may or may not require permission, depending on when it was built (b4 or after the 2 storey part). He's saying that even if it was after, it would be granted permission if he applied retrospectively, so it's not worth pursuing in his opinion. As I said above, my council would never take such a lenient view (Government advice in PPG18 does advocate using discretion, but we are certainly not that lenient!). I suppose it's just your council's way of interpreting the legislation and doing things. I do think you would have a reasonable case for complaining further, as you have not been given the right to object to the single storey extension, although even if an application were submitted and you did object, it would still likely be approved, so maybe it's not worth the hassle for you.

The boundary line and land ownership however is a different matter - like he says, it's a civil one, not a planning one, and I certainly wouldn't take kindly to a neighbour encroaching on my garden!

Strapped

Gawd, this thread is filling me with dread. My neighbour has a garage which is partly on "our side of the fence". (Non-standard arrangement of the buildings and it seems there was a verbal agreement that that would be OK with the previous occupants, who lived here a long time and were good friends with the neighbour). Both we and the neighbour want to make it "official" by redrawing the boundary because she now wants to convert the garage to a downstairs bedroom for herself, and we don't want any issues if we come to sell in future.

'Thought it was going to be straightforward!

VictorMeldew

Thank you to guppy and planning_officer again for your replies. I'll go through all the points tomorrow properly when I have more time.

Just to pick up on the point you made about boundary diagrams planning_officer, there is no-where on the plans showing the extension in relation to the boundarys. I did find dimensions on the ground floor plans but definitely no boundaries (either on the online plans or the ones I photographed at the planing office). Is this a regional requirement as well? If not, could I pursue this as well as pursuing the one-storey extension?

SquatNow

hethmar wrote: »

Unfortunately squat, things are never as simple as that - we know to our cost that the blindingly obvious does not always win the day.

Actually, it realy is that simple.

If it goes to court, the OP will win by default... it's his land. The neighbour can try to make a deal... offer to swap land, but if the OP refuses, the judge, as a point of law, will have to order the neighbour to tear down the part on the OPs land.

Even if the neighbour get planning permission for the entire extension in it's current state, it's still not on his land. The OP, in a worst case, could just demolish the corner on his land and neatly stack the brick on the neighbours lawn.

The sole purpose of UK law, order, police force and army is to protect the rights of landowners.

If a judge was to rule that the neighbour could keep the land, it would set an astounding precedent. Possesion of land, would effecively become 9/10 of the law and squatters or *anyone* would automatically be able to obtain ownership of someone elses land merely by building a house on it.

guppy

planning_officer wrote: »

As I said above, my council would never take such a lenient view

I like your council Some seem to have given up on planning enforcement, which in my opinion makes a mockery of the whole system.

waggys

VictorMeldew wrote: »

Wow. Thanks for that planning_officer, I did think that the bloke just couldn't be bothered from his dismissive attitude towards me. Could you point me in the direction of any specific legislation that I can quote back at him. Do you think it is worth me persuing this via the council? Even if he is made to apply for retrospective planning permission, it would probably be passed anyway.

Thanks epsilondraconis and everyone else for your support, it's nice to know other people think I'm not just complaining over nothing.

For anyone who is really interested, I've uploaded some pics of the extension:

Here's one from the front (my house is on the right). This is pretty much looking straight down the fence - you can see the extension sticking over at the back corner.

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh283/Bethsdad/DPP_0141-1.jpg

Here's the one storey extension at the back (on the right), and also shows how close the extension is to my house.

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh283/Bethsdad/DPP_0137-1.jpg

What a ridiculous colour match on the roof tiles!!!!! Can you not have him on the fact that the materials do not remotely match with exisiting?

prudryden

SquatNow wrote: »

Actually, it realy is that simple.

If it goes to court, the OP will win by default... it's his land. The neighbour can try to make a deal... offer to swap land, but if the OP refuses, the judge, as a point of law, will have to order the neighbour to tear down the part on the OPs land.

Even if the neighbour get planning permission for the entire extension in it's current state, it's still not on his land. The OP, in a worst case, could just demolish the corner on his land and neatly stack the brick on the neighbours lawn.

The sole purpose of UK law, order, police force and army is to protect the rights of landowners.

If a judge was to rule that the neighbour could keep the land, it would set an astounding precedent. Possesion of land, would effecively become 9/10 of the law and squatters or *anyone* would automatically be able to obtain ownership of someone elses land merely by building a house on it.

Interesting point!

What would Victor have to produce in court to prove to the Judge that it is actually his land and that the boundaries are where he says they are?

clutton_2

What would Victor have to produce in court to prove to the Judge that it is actually his land and that the boundaries are where he says they are?

a report from a surveyor specialising in boundary matters