Selfish developers / Neighbours
Discussion
TorqueVR said:
I read the article about this in the Mail, one of the broadsheets as well as this thread and the comments seem to be full of a complete lack of understanding and some racial prejudice.
The White's house looks to be built right up to the boundary line and the tiny gap between them and Mr Nazir seems to be on Nazir's land; if I'm wrong he's built over the boundary and on the White's garden. I assume that's not the case as otherwise the Whites wound be raising merry hell about it and the papers would be going on about trespass. The Whites are quite content to have lived in a house built up to the boundary for 37 years and then have the cheek to moan when their neighbours want the same. If it's OK for them then its OK for Nazir, who's had to come up with a horrible roof eaves design to overcome the White's roof trespassing over his side. Whereas he has cause to complain for their trespass, they are complaining about him simply extending his house on all sorts of spurious grounds. Has Nazir asked the Whites to cut back and rebuild their eaves and stop trespassing? No-he's just got on with it.
The "maintaining the wall" argument is just crap - there's nothing to maintain. Even if there was the Whites would have to have put up scaffolding or ladders off the neighbour's roof, which would make them a right PITA.
The light and view moan is also crap. There is no right to a view or to light otherwise any moaning Minnie could put a stop to neighbours building anything "because it spoils the view"
Loss of value and being unsaleable is also crap. I've surveyed hundreds of houses with extensions right up the boundary and with neighbours houses right up to the boundary and it makes no difference.
Nazir's house looked quite appalling before the extension and is now well balanced and much more attractive, so maybe the White's house will be more saleable as next door is no longer a dump! I feel sorry for Nazir, he's got the neighbours from hell.
Finally the racism here is quite unacceptable. It's been suggested above that Nazir's are the same "tribe" as the chief planning officer, so presumably I'm the same "tribe" as the Whites as have the same surname. I thought PH was better than that.
The closest to the truth that I've seen yet. Bravo sir, bravo!! The White's house looks to be built right up to the boundary line and the tiny gap between them and Mr Nazir seems to be on Nazir's land; if I'm wrong he's built over the boundary and on the White's garden. I assume that's not the case as otherwise the Whites wound be raising merry hell about it and the papers would be going on about trespass. The Whites are quite content to have lived in a house built up to the boundary for 37 years and then have the cheek to moan when their neighbours want the same. If it's OK for them then its OK for Nazir, who's had to come up with a horrible roof eaves design to overcome the White's roof trespassing over his side. Whereas he has cause to complain for their trespass, they are complaining about him simply extending his house on all sorts of spurious grounds. Has Nazir asked the Whites to cut back and rebuild their eaves and stop trespassing? No-he's just got on with it.
The "maintaining the wall" argument is just crap - there's nothing to maintain. Even if there was the Whites would have to have put up scaffolding or ladders off the neighbour's roof, which would make them a right PITA.
The light and view moan is also crap. There is no right to a view or to light otherwise any moaning Minnie could put a stop to neighbours building anything "because it spoils the view"
Loss of value and being unsaleable is also crap. I've surveyed hundreds of houses with extensions right up the boundary and with neighbours houses right up to the boundary and it makes no difference.
Nazir's house looked quite appalling before the extension and is now well balanced and much more attractive, so maybe the White's house will be more saleable as next door is no longer a dump! I feel sorry for Nazir, he's got the neighbours from hell.
Finally the racism here is quite unacceptable. It's been suggested above that Nazir's are the same "tribe" as the chief planning officer, so presumably I'm the same "tribe" as the Whites as have the same surname. I thought PH was better than that.
sjn2004 said:
So the people in the white house built right on the limit of their land and overhung into next doors airspace. They then get very upset when the neighbour builds completely on his own land and airspace.
What are we missing?
2 things.What are we missing?
As I said about 3 posts earlier, it looks as though the real boundary is about a foot to the left of the white house at ground level so their eaves dont overhang next door. However next door have been using that piece of ground as if it's their own and now built on it underneath the eaves
Anyone found a land registry plan - not that they can always be relied on
saaby93 said:
Just looked on google the boundary wall is left of centre so something has gone wrong with the line
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=The+Hurst,+in+Mos...
Looking at the street view, it seems that the boundary wall between the two properties at the front drive belongs to Nazir, based on its setting out relative to two houses.https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=The+Hurst,+in+Mos...
Also, the September 2012 street view shows an existing infill section to Nazir's property butting up to the flank wall of the Whites house. This indicates that the boundary line of the White's property is along their flank wall (which corresponds with the ownership of the boundary wall to the drive). This also further indicates that their eaves are technically trespassing over Nazir's property, which would explain why Nazir has built his extension in such a way.
The roof detail is not pretty or ideal, and I'm sure that a much neater and pragmatic solution could have been found if Nazir and the Whites had communicated better. The article has many inaccuracies and I'm also sure that there is much more to this story than has been (poorly)reported.
saaby93 said:
2 things.
As I said about 3 posts earlier, it looks as though the real boundary is about a foot to the left of the white house at ground level so their eaves dont overhang next door. However next door have been using that piece of ground as if it's their own and now built on it underneath the eaves
Anyone found a land registry plan - not that they can always be relied on
I think that you have incorrectly interpreted the street view image. See my post above.As I said about 3 posts earlier, it looks as though the real boundary is about a foot to the left of the white house at ground level so their eaves dont overhang next door. However next door have been using that piece of ground as if it's their own and now built on it underneath the eaves
Anyone found a land registry plan - not that they can always be relied on
Mandat said:
Also, the September 2012 street view shows an existing infill section to Nazir's property butting up to the flank wall of the Whites house. This indicates that the boundary line of the White's property is along their flank wall (which corresponds with the ownership of the boundary wall to the drive). This also further indicates that their eaves are technically trespassing over Nazir's property, which would explain why Nazir has built his extension in such a way.
Isn't the infill just convenience rather than showing the boundary?Often you see someone erect a wooden sidegate in such a position
Would the houses have been built with the eaves trespassing?
They'll have the same issue underground too as the footings for the wall will probably be out as far as the eaves
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 14th September 21:45
I remain of the view that there are smoke and mirrors at play here.
First of all to clarify that planning permission has chuff all to do with boundaries or indeed possession of rights to develop. I could, for instance, apply for consent to build in any of your gardens and, subject to it being a sound proposal in planning terms receive consent. The requirement is that I give the relevant notice as required under the planning acts.
Having got that consent it would confer no rights over anyone else to allow me to trespass or build that development for which I had consent. It does not, therefore, permit trespass.
On that basis, whilst the planning authority in the case before us may well have been idiotic in granting that consent because it looks dreadful it is irrelevant .
It looks to me that there has been some past alterations and that the wall line between the front gardens has moved. There would clearly have been a sideways to the left of the Whites house, or some description. If nothing else that is evidenced by the design of the eaves. I do not accept the suggestion that it was often the case that builders left a situation with encroachment. The first encroachment over the boundary would seem to be the enclosing upon the wall by the single storey extension. Even if it is separated from the Whites flank wall it still encroaches below the line of the eaves which must be the minimum distance the boundary was set.
I suspect that was probably by agreement in time past, probably not documented or ignored and the new chap assumes he has the right to build vertically from what he sees as his wall.
All a bit of a clusterf
k really. The suggestions in some of the posts are outrageous but I am bound to say that the new chap is in the wrong for proceeding as he has and it looks ridiculous as a result.
This sort of thing is just one of the reasons I give thanks for not dealing with domestic property these days. Boundary disputes.........avoid at all costs.
First of all to clarify that planning permission has chuff all to do with boundaries or indeed possession of rights to develop. I could, for instance, apply for consent to build in any of your gardens and, subject to it being a sound proposal in planning terms receive consent. The requirement is that I give the relevant notice as required under the planning acts.
Having got that consent it would confer no rights over anyone else to allow me to trespass or build that development for which I had consent. It does not, therefore, permit trespass.
On that basis, whilst the planning authority in the case before us may well have been idiotic in granting that consent because it looks dreadful it is irrelevant .
It looks to me that there has been some past alterations and that the wall line between the front gardens has moved. There would clearly have been a sideways to the left of the Whites house, or some description. If nothing else that is evidenced by the design of the eaves. I do not accept the suggestion that it was often the case that builders left a situation with encroachment. The first encroachment over the boundary would seem to be the enclosing upon the wall by the single storey extension. Even if it is separated from the Whites flank wall it still encroaches below the line of the eaves which must be the minimum distance the boundary was set.
I suspect that was probably by agreement in time past, probably not documented or ignored and the new chap assumes he has the right to build vertically from what he sees as his wall.
All a bit of a clusterf
k really. The suggestions in some of the posts are outrageous but I am bound to say that the new chap is in the wrong for proceeding as he has and it looks ridiculous as a result.This sort of thing is just one of the reasons I give thanks for not dealing with domestic property these days. Boundary disputes.........avoid at all costs.
saaby93 said:
2 things.
As I said about 3 posts earlier, it looks as though the real boundary is about a foot to the left of the white house at ground level so their eaves dont overhang next door. However next door have been using that piece of ground as if it's their own and now built on it underneath the eaves
Anyone found a land registry plan - not that they can always be relied on
I'm with the other guys.As I said about 3 posts earlier, it looks as though the real boundary is about a foot to the left of the white house at ground level so their eaves dont overhang next door. However next door have been using that piece of ground as if it's their own and now built on it underneath the eaves
Anyone found a land registry plan - not that they can always be relied on
If the neighbour had built over the boundary line it would have been a piece of piss to get it stopped.
It looks far more likely that the white building has its side wall very close to the boundary and that their roof is overhanging the boundary. Unless the white bit shown on the earlier streetview shot belonged to the white building...in which case it'd have been even easier to stop it.
One way or another, that arrangement is giving rise to a technical trespass. Put simply, the two properties can physically overlap like that without one or other building either being physically constructed on land outside of their ownership, or overhanging land outside of their ownership.
Given the relative age of the properties, it's far more likely that the new extension is on land outside of the ownership of the associated property. Land registry plans will almost certainly not help, as the scale will mean the thickness of the line will cover both possibilities.
Whichever way the ownership falls, there's an issue of the Party Wall regs which doesn't appear to have been complied with - the need to get the neighbour's permission to build on the shared boundary.
As for the Council, whilst they should have looked at this more closely and highlighted the likely issue prior to granting the plans, they have no legislative role here, as someone up the chain here has already mentioned. As such, whilst it's nice to blame them, really it's down to the guy building the extension to ensure he's legally covered.
All fairly typical of such extensions, in my experience - few people involved knowing the ins and outs of the regs, which leaves bad feeling and issues further down the line.
Given the relative age of the properties, it's far more likely that the new extension is on land outside of the ownership of the associated property. Land registry plans will almost certainly not help, as the scale will mean the thickness of the line will cover both possibilities.
Whichever way the ownership falls, there's an issue of the Party Wall regs which doesn't appear to have been complied with - the need to get the neighbour's permission to build on the shared boundary.
As for the Council, whilst they should have looked at this more closely and highlighted the likely issue prior to granting the plans, they have no legislative role here, as someone up the chain here has already mentioned. As such, whilst it's nice to blame them, really it's down to the guy building the extension to ensure he's legally covered.
All fairly typical of such extensions, in my experience - few people involved knowing the ins and outs of the regs, which leaves bad feeling and issues further down the line.
Whoever is in the wrong, surely if your builder shows you the plans saying this is how it will end up looking it doesnt take a genius to spot its going to look like a dogs dinner and think lets change the design?
And those saying the white house over hangs the property being developed, even if so how old is that house? I doubt the current owners built it, so hows that really relevant now? Also when refering to spoilt views, surely they are refering to the steaming pile of cack which is show in the picture above?
spats said:
Whoever is in the wrong, surely if your builder shows you the plans saying this is how it will end up looking it doesnt take a genius to spot its going to look like a dogs dinner and think lets change the design?
And those saying the white house over hangs the property being developed, even if so how old is that house? I doubt the current owners built it, so hows that really relevant now? Also when refering to spoilt views, surely they are refering to the steaming pile of cack which is show in the picture above?
Mr GrimNasty said:
groomi said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
groomi said:
Take a tour of the rest of the street - they're all very similarly spaced!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4305841,-1.86185...
Not the same at all, they all seem to have a 1M+ side passageway, which is what any sane person would leave as a minimum.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4305841,-1.86185...
The White's house looks like it has not been extended. Like many of the houses in that area it was likely to have been built in the early 1930s. It's quite common for the gap between two house to be covered at ground floor level to create a covered passage way/ storage area.
I live in a different local authority area with. However, I have seen planning permission denied for similar two story extensions on the basis "it's not in keeping with the area" or words to that effect.
Based on my experience that is a major fail by Birmingham Council.
I live in a different local authority area with. However, I have seen planning permission denied for similar two story extensions on the basis "it's not in keeping with the area" or words to that effect.
Based on my experience that is a major fail by Birmingham Council.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff