Thoughts on this planning decision? (Scotland)
Discussion
I'm interested in people's thoughts on this planning decision which Aberdeen City Council approved (work is underway).
Two (close to) identical properties (ex-council; both long since private) separated by their respective driveways.
The house on the left was granted permission to extend right up to the plot line.
During the planning consultation process, the house on the right was owned / occupied by an elderly lady.
My opinion is that it shouldn't have been considered as it prevents anything similar from being done to the house on the right.
I'm just interested to know what others think.
Thanks.
Two (close to) identical properties (ex-council; both long since private) separated by their respective driveways.
The house on the left was granted permission to extend right up to the plot line.
During the planning consultation process, the house on the right was owned / occupied by an elderly lady.
My opinion is that it shouldn't have been considered as it prevents anything similar from being done to the house on the right.
I'm just interested to know what others think.
Thanks.
I see 2 issues.
1) Access to the rear of the property usually has to be maintained. If there is no access on the other side of the house then this would usually be a breach.
2) Loss of light. If the extension is to be double story then the adjacent property will suffer from loss of light.
However, if consent has been given already then not much can be done.
1) Access to the rear of the property usually has to be maintained. If there is no access on the other side of the house then this would usually be a breach.
2) Loss of light. If the extension is to be double story then the adjacent property will suffer from loss of light.
However, if consent has been given already then not much can be done.
Yes , some people take advantage of elderly neighbours, or adjoining houses being empty ,to apply for this sort of 'in yer face' extension. Certainly if I lived in the neighbouring house I would have objected vigorously to this carbuncle a few feet from my windows.
If the wall is up to the boundary , shirley the foundations must be partly in the neighbours garden?
If the wall is up to the boundary , shirley the foundations must be partly in the neighbours garden?
Not Scottish Law, but in England there have numerous newspaper stories and threads on here about it.
Conclusion is that takes a certain type of low life individual to do it, but planning often allow it.
This one has a thread on ph somewhere discussing it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2751782/Co...
Conclusion is that takes a certain type of low life individual to do it, but planning often allow it.
This one has a thread on ph somewhere discussing it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2751782/Co...
I can't see the problem to be honest
Doesn't effect access to the back of the house on the right
Doesn't ruin the view of the house on the right
And as to stopping the house on the right extending
then by that standard the house on the right should be prevented from extending for exactly the same reasons
Doesn't effect access to the back of the house on the right
Doesn't ruin the view of the house on the right
And as to stopping the house on the right extending
then by that standard the house on the right should be prevented from extending for exactly the same reasonsWith the amount of scaffolding in the garden of the house on the right I assume that access etc has been given.
I don't know what the rules in Scotland are about building on the boundary, although its a good idea to ensure you have actually built on the boundary and not over it! In theory the foundations and gutters will be over it.
Not sure that stopping next door extending is a real concern as they could also build right up to boundary as well although I agree it probably wouldnt be pleasant if you lived in the house on the right and were used to the space light etc.
I don't know what the rules in Scotland are about building on the boundary, although its a good idea to ensure you have actually built on the boundary and not over it! In theory the foundations and gutters will be over it.
Not sure that stopping next door extending is a real concern as they could also build right up to boundary as well although I agree it probably wouldnt be pleasant if you lived in the house on the right and were used to the space light etc.
Kiltie said:
I'm interested in people's thoughts on this planning decision which Aberdeen City Council approved (work is underway).
Two (close to) identical properties (ex-council; both long since private) separated by their respective driveways.
The house on the left was granted permission to extend right up to the plot line.
During the planning consultation process, the house on the right was owned / occupied by an elderly lady.
My opinion is that it shouldn't have been considered as it prevents anything similar from being done to the house on the right.
I'm just interested to know what others think.
Thanks.
Interesting, I was always led to believe that distance x (think 1 to 1.5m) had to be kept from any boundary.Two (close to) identical properties (ex-council; both long since private) separated by their respective driveways.
The house on the left was granted permission to extend right up to the plot line.
During the planning consultation process, the house on the right was owned / occupied by an elderly lady.
My opinion is that it shouldn't have been considered as it prevents anything similar from being done to the house on the right.
I'm just interested to know what others think.
Thanks.
Problem is that it never seems straight forward as all planning departments and officers seem to have differing views.
Going through something similar and talking with the planning officer his exact words were " yes I know it's not ideal but......"
Kiltie said:
I'm interested in people's thoughts on this planning decision which Aberdeen City Council approved (work is underway).
Two (close to) identical properties (ex-council; both long since private) separated by their respective driveways.
The house on the left was granted permission to extend right up to the plot line.
During the planning consultation process, the house on the right was owned / occupied by an elderly lady.
My opinion is that it shouldn't have been considered as it prevents anything similar from being done to the house on the right.
I'm just interested to know what others think.
Thanks.
Interesting, I was always led to believe that distance x (think 1 to 1.5m) had to be kept from any boundary.Two (close to) identical properties (ex-council; both long since private) separated by their respective driveways.
The house on the left was granted permission to extend right up to the plot line.
During the planning consultation process, the house on the right was owned / occupied by an elderly lady.
My opinion is that it shouldn't have been considered as it prevents anything similar from being done to the house on the right.
I'm just interested to know what others think.
Thanks.
Problem is that it never seems straight forward as all planning departments and officers seem to have differing views.
Going through something similar and talking with the planning officer his exact words were " yes I know it's not ideal but......"
tighnamara said:
Interesting, I was always led to believe that distance x (think 1 to 1.5m) had to be kept from any boundary.
Problem is that it never seems straight forward as all planning departments and officers seem to have differing views.
Going through something similar and talking with the planning officer his exact words were " yes I know it's not ideal but......"
There is a boundary limit, I've just been through it. On one side I had to keep my outer wall at least 1m from boundary. On other side I could build to boundary as neighbours already had an extension, but my windows above their roofline had to be 1m back from the boundary leading to an 'interesting' design!Problem is that it never seems straight forward as all planning departments and officers seem to have differing views.
Going through something similar and talking with the planning officer his exact words were " yes I know it's not ideal but......"
Thanks for the replies. It's good to hear a cross section of opinion and experience.
This was my mother-in-law who has sadly passed away now.
We have to assume that she was aware of the plans for the finished article and didn't object.
My wife knew that there was going to be some building work but hadn't understood the extent. She remembers her mum saying something along the lines of not allowing the extension to be "one inch over the boundary" but never really thought about it too much at the time.
Things spiralled a bit in the second half of last year with her being quite ill and then passing.
Some thoughts of mine ...
stuart313 said:
If next door is bothered why let them use their drive for the scaffolding.
Access was agreed to by the elderly owner / occupier of the house on the right.This was my mother-in-law who has sadly passed away now.
We have to assume that she was aware of the plans for the finished article and didn't object.
My wife knew that there was going to be some building work but hadn't understood the extent. She remembers her mum saying something along the lines of not allowing the extension to be "one inch over the boundary" but never really thought about it too much at the time.
Things spiralled a bit in the second half of last year with her being quite ill and then passing.
Some thoughts of mine ...
- I don't think the local authority could possibly ever grant permission for a mirror image type extension as it would completely block access to the back. This is academic but it doesn't seem very egalitarian.
- Even if such permission was granted and new owners wanted to extend, I can see there being all sorts of practical difficulties with the two properties sharing a wall (both in construction and ongoing maintenance).
- I'm sure this extension will lower the value of my mother-in-law's house. The financial aspect doesn't bother me at all; it's more the principle of someone gaining and knowing that a neighbour would be losing.
- I don't think light is much of an issue. That area between the gables was always pretty gloomy before anyway.
- I hadn't thought of the access issue. Owner of the left house "assumes" that his neighbour will always be happy for him to get garden things too big for the front door through their property and over the fence at the back.
- Overhangs have also been mentioned and I also hadn't thought of that either. It's a gable end so no gutter but the wall is cock-on the boundary so the eaves will surely have to overhang.
- I might not have become to irritated by this if the builders hadn't caused such a mess on my mother-in-law's property (rubbish, fag ends, damage to roughcast, dirty front step). It's been a bit upsetting for my wife and her sister.
Edited by Kiltie on Sunday 25th January 13:25
From a planning perspective it sets a precedent and therefore it is highly likely you would get permission to do the same.
YOu seem fixed on the need to maintain group rear access, but that isn't something I have come across - is it a Scottish thing?
Party walls are also very common, as is the legislation around them.
Personally, I see it isn't ideal, but it may even have added to the value as a buyer can see how they can easily extend.
YOu seem fixed on the need to maintain group rear access, but that isn't something I have come across - is it a Scottish thing?
Party walls are also very common, as is the legislation around them.
Personally, I see it isn't ideal, but it may even have added to the value as a buyer can see how they can easily extend.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff