Neighbour wanting a front extension, not pleased.

[Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah]

Efbe said:

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

Good spot, and yes I know that house, we pass it dog walking daily. It's actually the house of the daughter of a lovely couple who are our allotment neighbours!

I'd say the big difference there is they are end of terrace. Looking around various sites 'over baring', 'ugly' and 'out of character' are valid objections to submit, which I suspect shall be at least a good part of our objection. One thing I shall do in due course is mock up the size and shape of what he proposes in plywood or similar, and take current and 'after' photos from our open front door, to demonstrate in our objection how over baring such a structure shall be, so close to our front door.

Google sketchup. much easier!

good luck with it all, though as a backup, in lieu of being able to stop it, it may be better to get on side with the neighbour and point out how a solid structure like the one I linked will increase value of property much more than a upvc extension that potential buyers will just treat as a porch and essentially ignore.

I'd take similar umbrage at a brick structure so close TBH. We haven't fallen out over discussing it, but he'll likely be unhappy when we object, more so if it stops it. Tough titties, he's shown no concession or even that he'd consider concession when we've stated our upset. He show's us no consideration, we'll show him none in objecting. Fairs fair.

[dave_s13]

That end terrace carbuncle seems to fall foul of the 45 degree rule from the neighbouring window. ie. if you draw a line out at 45 degrees from the edge of that front bay then the extension shouldn't touch the line.

But, planning guidance changes over time and it is only "guidance", you can bend the rules to a degree.

That sort of structure on one of the middle houses would indeed look even worse and be an oppressive site from the neighbours side.

[anonymous-user]

I suspect you're wasting your time on whether the land to the front of the houses is communally owned/shared acess etc etc.

You already gain access to your house by walking over a piece of land in front of his house.

At the very least it's as much his as it is yours.

He's not intending to block access - only make it narrower.

If you made a point to him of the land in front of his house not being his, he might realise that the land in front of your house is not yours either... and start leaving his wheelbarrow there etc etc

When and if he finally submits a planning application you will have a lot of grounds on which to object.

Although it is common in some parts of your town for front porch/extensions - there are known on your row of houses - perhaps one of the last 'original' rows of terraces in your neighbourhood and worth preserving on that basis.

If in the end, he does get permission, the PWA will not stop him building, BUT it may add considerably to his expense (he must pay for a surveyor for you etc) - so it might deter him.

It might encourage him to build the wall further away from your front door to remove your grounds for objection under the PWA.
It might stop him digging so close to your house.
It's not the answer to everything but it might help.

[Elysium]

mikeveal said:

IANAL.
You don't need to own land to apply for (and gain)planning permission to build on it. The council will inform the owner of the application, but I don't believe the owners consent is required.
If the council granted PP & the neighbour built on land that he didn't exclusively own, the issue is a civil one of trespass and the neighbour is in adverse possession of the land.

It's civil law, so neither the council nor police will care and you will have to fight the guy in the courts to get the land back.

The planning application does need to be fought. I don't believe that land ownership is a legitimate objection. Building beyond the front elevation is. Unfortunately if others have done this, there is a precedent.

If the land is communal, then now would be a good time for the neighbour to receive a letter from your solicitor outlining your rights and stating that you will seek enforcement through the courts if he goes ahead.

In short, I think there are two separate and distinct battlefronts.

You need to take the deeds of both properties to a solicitor for paid, insured & expert advice as soon as possible.

This is not quite right.

A planning application requires an ownership declaration to be made. If the applicant is not the freeholder or his agent then he must provide details of the freeholder and serve them with a formal notice in advance of the application. It is not the local authorities job to notify and if this section is not properly dealt with the application will not be validated.

The planning authority is not responsible for determining ownership, but if permission is granted, that does not establish any argument for adverse possession. That would require the extension to be built and maintained for at least 10 years. Plenty of time for the owner to prove his title and take legal action to remedy trespass.

Your final point is correct. The OP needs to check the deeds and if it is unclear take legal advice. If the neighbour does not own the land, then this should be nipped in the bud well before any planning application is made.

[Elysium]

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

Welshbeef said:

OP have you spent the £3-6 yet that many have suggested which will then verify one way or the other if it’s communist ground.

Until that is known you’ll be worrying potentially needlessly.

We have the title deeds in our position from the purchase point. Is it not just these that we'd replicate? The issue is that there are a few things which are unclear, which, based on what the solicitors informed us, require further clarification. At the moment the only term we can see on them is 'right of access', not the word 'communal', which is what the solicitor stated to us.

If you have the title deeds to hand, them you do not need to check the registry entry, but for £3 I would not think twice about it.

1. Right of access over what?

2. There will be an outline plan showing the extent of your property:

a. Does your ownership include any of the front yard?
b. Does your neighbour own any of it (you can check this buy paying the £3 to the land registry for a copy of his title entry)?

[Elysium]

irememberyou said:

I suspect you're wasting your time on whether the land to the front of the houses is communally owned/shared acess etc etc.

You already gain access to your house by walking over a piece of land in front of his house.

At the very least it's as much his as it is yours..

This is really bad advice.

[CAPP0]

OP, shall you be taking action on any of the advice which shall have been given in this thread, or shall you continue to mither about it until the neighbour shall decide that he shall commence building the structure that he shall desire, whereupon you shall potentially have less options to take action against that which you shall probably dislike?

[Kermit power]

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

Gavia said:

FiF said:

Where is the permitted building line? Should show it on the papers when you bought the place. Any extension must NOT go beyond that line.

Also page 1 para 3
https://ecab.planningportal.co.uk/uploads/miniguid...

Does he fall foul of point 2 as well? You mention a big shed type building in his back garden that needs to be included on the max 50% increase in square footage from original house.

It shall be close. This is his house ad when he bought it. Pic 8 shows what was his back garden, an now there is a wooden workshop which starts about a metre from the back gate, and continues down to the end of the first red fence panel on the right. I think the fact that there is a 2 metre extension (IE not featured on the 1948 rule) which he didn't build will swing it in his favour. IF he went full on prick mode it is far taller than allowed, no doubt about this.

Apologies if someone else has already mentioned it (I haven't read the whole way through), but I think you've read things the wrong way round!

As I understand it, if that rear extension was build after 1948, then it counts against the allowed 50% additional space, regardless of whether he built it or a previous owner did.

From the look of it, I'd say the extension and the hideous Wendy house already put him well over the 50% increase before he gets started on the front. If he insists on pressing ahead, I'd agree that the passive aggressive approach of "I'm just worried for you that if you put in for planning permission on the front, they'll check you're not over the 50% increase, and might make you take your Wendy House down" is the right one to go for.

[Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah]

CAPP0 said:

OP, shall you be taking action on any of the advice which shall have been given in this thread, or shall you continue to mither about it until the neighbour shall decide that he shall commence building the structure that he shall desire, whereupon you shall potentially have less options to take action against that which you shall probably dislike?

Yes, very much so, there's been some good advice. He won't just be building it, he recognises that planning is required. We shall be looking further in to if the land in front of us is considered access, or if in deed it is communal.

It is a very good point RE the 50% rule, as it just popped in to my head that he stated yesterday that he also wants to build a garage behind the workshop. I'd imagine including that he shall be close or possibly over 50% of his land. There is a 2m extension on the rear of his house, built around 2010 before he bought the house, is that also included in the 50% total?

Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Thursday 29th March 15:37

Edit. Just had a quick rough measure. The Wendy House (I love that!) is about 10.1m. He has a 2 metre rear brick extension. His free garden is 9.2m, And the carport behind the workshop is 5.5. the front yard is 2.6 m. So at the mo he his comfortably 12.1 taken v 17.3 free. If he builds his garage he shall be at 11.8 free 17.6 taken. Well over 50% of his land mass taken, which if I read it right would veto any front extension being built, as he would already be well past 50% of his land built on. If I seem him knocking a garage up anytime soon I'll go and give him a hand!

Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Thursday 29th March 16:11

Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Thursday 29th March 16:13

[Flibble]

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

Yes, very much so, there's been some good advice. He won't just be building it, he recognises that planning is required. We shall be looking further in to if the land in front of us is considered access, or if in deed it is communal.

It is a very good point RE the 50% rule, as it just popped in to my head that he stated yesterday that he also wants to build a garage behind the workshop. I'd imagine including that he shall be close or possibly over 50% of his land. There is a 2m extension on the rear of his house, built around 2010 before he bought the house, is that also included in the 50% total?

Edit. Just had a quick rough measure. The Wendy House (I love that!) is about 10.1m. He has a 2 metre rear brick extension. His free garden is 9.2m, And the carport behind the workshop is 5.5. the front yard is 2.6 m. So at the mo he his comfortably 12.1 taken v 17.3 free. If he builds his garage he shall be at 11.8 free 17.6 taken. Well over 50% of his land mass taken, which if I read it right would veto any front extension being built, as he would already be well past 50% of his land built on. If I seem him knocking a garage up anytime soon I'll go and give him a hand!

Everything is included in the 50% total, unless it was built prior to 1948, regardless of who built it.

Specifically: the total area of ground covered by buildings, enclosures and containers within the curtilage (other than the original dwellinghouse) would exceed 50% of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse)

He could always apply for planning though - the 50% rule only applies to permitted development, it would not automatically block a planning application for his "porch" (though it wouldn't help).

[Henners]

May have been mentioned, apologies if so - could it be thought that he's running a business from that 'shed'?

Someone down the road has a very nice garage - really well built, but has a hobby repairing motorbikes for what I'm guessing is a riding club or something and made quite a bit of noise.

Some bods down the road complained a fair bit and he got hauled over the coals about it but the council / planners

[Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah]

Henners said:

May have been mentioned, apologies if so - could it be thought that he's running a business from that 'shed'?

Someone down the road has a very nice garage - really well built, but has a hobby repairing motorbikes for what I'm guessing is a riding club or something and made quite a bit of noise.

Some bods down the road complained a fair bit and he got hauled over the coals about it but the council / planners

I am pretty certain that no business is being run from home. They rarely have visitors, and I've never seen his car being loaded with anything wood work (for delivery)

[Gavia]

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

CAPP0 said:

OP, shall you be taking action on any of the advice which shall have been given in this thread, or shall you continue to mither about it until the neighbour shall decide that he shall commence building the structure that he shall desire, whereupon you shall potentially have less options to take action against that which you shall probably dislike?

Yes, very much so, there's been some good advice. He won't just be building it, he recognises that planning is required. We shall be looking further in to if the land in front of us is considered access, or if in deed it is communal.

It is a very good point RE the 50% rule, as it just popped in to my head that he stated yesterday that he also wants to build a garage behind the workshop. I'd imagine including that he shall be close or possibly over 50% of his land. There is a 2m extension on the rear of his house, built around 2010 before he bought the house, is that also included in the 50% total?

Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Thursday 29th March 15:37

Edit. Just had a quick rough measure. The Wendy House (I love that!) is about 10.1m. He has a 2 metre rear brick extension. His free garden is 9.2m, And the carport behind the workshop is 5.5. the front yard is 2.6 m. So at the mo he his comfortably 12.1 taken v 17.3 free. If he builds his garage he shall be at 11.8 free 17.6 taken. Well over 50% of his land mass taken, which if I read it right would veto any front extension being built, as he would already be well past 50% of his land built on. If I seem him knocking a garage up anytime soon I'll go and give him a hand!

Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Thursday 29th March 16:11

Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Thursday 29th March 16:13

I think thou shall deserve a whoosh parrot for the lack of notice of the word shall and that shall thusly be served henceforth.

[bennno]

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

Yes, very much so, there's been some good advice. He won't just be building it, he recognises that planning is required. We shall be looking further in to if the land in front of us is considered access, or if in deed it is communal.

It is a very good point RE the 50% rule, as it just popped in to my head that he stated yesterday that he also wants to build a garage behind the workshop. I'd imagine including that he shall be close or possibly over 50% of his land. There is a 2m extension on the rear of his house, built around 2010 before he bought the house, is that also included in the 50% total?

Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Thursday 29th March 15:37

Edit. Just had a quick rough measure. The Wendy House (I love that!) is about 10.1m. He has a 2 metre rear brick extension. His free garden is 9.2m, And the carport behind the workshop is 5.5. the front yard is 2.6 m. So at the mo he his comfortably 12.1 taken v 17.3 free. If he builds his garage he shall be at 11.8 free 17.6 taken. Well over 50% of his land mass taken, which if I read it right would veto any front extension being built, as he would already be well past 50% of his land built on. If I seem him knocking a garage up anytime soon I'll go and give him a hand!

Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Thursday 29th March 16:11

Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Thursday 29th March 16:13

Its not 50% of his land, its 50% incremental footprint related to the size of the original building

[Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah]

bennno said:

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

Yes, very much so, there's been some good advice. He won't just be building it, he recognises that planning is required. We shall be looking further in to if the land in front of us is considered access, or if in deed it is communal.

It is a very good point RE the 50% rule, as it just popped in to my head that he stated yesterday that he also wants to build a garage behind the workshop. I'd imagine including that he shall be close or possibly over 50% of his land. There is a 2m extension on the rear of his house, built around 2010 before he bought the house, is that also included in the 50% total?

Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Thursday 29th March 15:37

Edit. Just had a quick rough measure. The Wendy House (I love that!) is about 10.1m. He has a 2 metre rear brick extension. His free garden is 9.2m, And the carport behind the workshop is 5.5. the front yard is 2.6 m. So at the mo he his comfortably 12.1 taken v 17.3 free. If he builds his garage he shall be at 11.8 free 17.6 taken. Well over 50% of his land mass taken, which if I read it right would veto any front extension being built, as he would already be well past 50% of his land built on. If I seem him knocking a garage up anytime soon I'll go and give him a hand!

Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Thursday 29th March 16:11

Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Thursday 29th March 16:13

Its not 50% of his land, its 50% incremental footprint related to the size of the original building

point 2 in the post suggests otherwise. 'extensions must not exceed 50% of the land around the house' or words to that affect.

[Elysium]

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

Edit. Just had a quick rough measure. The Wendy House (I love that!) is about 10.1m. He has a 2 metre rear brick extension. His free garden is 9.2m, And the carport behind the workshop is 5.5. the front yard is 2.6 m. So at the mo he his comfortably 12.1 taken v 17.3 free. If he builds his garage he shall be at 11.8 free 17.6 taken. Well over 50% of his land mass taken, which if I read it right would veto any front extension being built, as he would already be well past 50% of his land built on. If I seem him knocking a garage up anytime soon I'll go and give him a hand!

So you have found time to measure his shed, which is largely irrelevant to your problem, but you have not been able to check your title deeds, which could solve it immediately?

[nonsequitur]

Elysium said:

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

Edit. Just had a quick rough measure. The Wendy House (I love that!) is about 10.1m. He has a 2 metre rear brick extension. His free garden is 9.2m, And the carport behind the workshop is 5.5. the front yard is 2.6 m. So at the mo he his comfortably 12.1 taken v 17.3 free. If he builds his garage he shall be at 11.8 free 17.6 taken. Well over 50% of his land mass taken, which if I read it right would veto any front extension being built, as he would already be well past 50% of his land built on. If I seem him knocking a garage up anytime soon I'll go and give him a hand!

So you have found time to measure his shed, which is largely irrelevant to your problem, but you have not been able to check your title deeds, which could solve it immediately?

Steady Ely, they are covering all the options. Very wisely.

[monkfish1]

Im half tempted to spend the £6 and 5 minutes to find out myself so i can relieve the tension of not knowing the answer.

[Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah]

Elysium said:

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

Edit. Just had a quick rough measure. The Wendy House (I love that!) is about 10.1m. He has a 2 metre rear brick extension. His free garden is 9.2m, And the carport behind the workshop is 5.5. the front yard is 2.6 m. So at the mo he his comfortably 12.1 taken v 17.3 free. If he builds his garage he shall be at 11.8 free 17.6 taken. Well over 50% of his land mass taken, which if I read it right would veto any front extension being built, as he would already be well past 50% of his land built on. If I seem him knocking a garage up anytime soon I'll go and give him a hand!

So you have found time to measure his shed, which is largely irrelevant to your problem, but you have not been able to check your title deeds, which could solve it immediately?

For what feels like the 15th time! We have checked our deeds, it was one of the first things we did, and they are unclear. At a very minimum they state we have access rights, yet it is unclear if if the area is communal. The solicitor advised that the area was, so we need to speak with them.

It took 5 minutes to measure the size of the shed/garden/car port. If he builds a garage behind the wendy house (he's stated it shall be wooden structure, and he volunteered this information yesterday when we chatted) this shall be very relevant. It shall mean that probably 60something % of his land shall have structures and extensions on it, something which may well be very handy in an objection.

Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Thursday 29th March 21:27

[Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah]

monkfish1 said:

Im half tempted to spend the £6 and 5 minutes to find out myself so i can relieve the tension of not knowing the answer.

Serious question, as this is my assumption. Will the information provided not be just the same as what is in our possession, and unclear? We have the title deeds in our possession. If what is supplied is any different I shall do it tomorrow.