Access across neighbours land to build side extension

[Sarah_W]

Hypethitically, what are the rights of access on a neighbours land for the purposes of building an extension upto the boundary? Is there any right, or does doing so rely upon the neighbours permission, hence possibly have to leave a few feet from the boundary for access?

[B17NNS]

Just move his fence.

[AndyAudi]

B17NNS said:

Just move his fence.

[Busamav]

Sarah_W said:

Hypethitically, what are the rights of access on a neighbours land for the purposes of building an extension upto the boundary? Is there any right, or does doing so rely upon the neighbours permission, hence possibly have to leave a few feet from the boundary for access?

No rights at all ,

you are reliant on his goodwill, or a generous gesture on your behalf to win him over

[blueg33]

Busamav said:

Sarah_W said:

Hypethitically, what are the rights of access on a neighbours land for the purposes of building an extension upto the boundary? Is there any right, or does doing so rely upon the neighbours permission, hence possibly have to leave a few feet from the boundary for access?

No rights at all ,

you are reliant on his goodwill, or a generous gesture on your behalf to win him over

Unless your title grants rights.

[Sam_68]

Busamav said:

No rights at all

:cough: party wall act

:cough: Access to Neighbouring Land Act

[DocJock]

Sam_68 said:

Busamav said:

No rights at all

:cough: party wall act

:cough: Access to Neighbouring Land Act

[blueg33]

Sam_68 said:

Busamav said:

No rights at all

:cough: party wall act

:cough: Access to Neighbouring Land Act

Since when is an extenension "reasonably necessary for the preservation of that land " ? The Act would require a payment if the value of the property that acces is required for is enhanced.

(4)
Where the court is satisfied on an application under this section that it is reasonably necessary to carry out any basic preservation works to the dominant land, those works shall be taken for the purposes of this Act to be reasonably necessary for the preservation of the land; and in this subsection “basic preservation works” means any of the following, that is to say— .
(a)
the maintenance, repair or renewal of any part of a building or other structure comprised in, or situate on, the dominant land; .
(b)
the clearance, repair or renewal of any drain, sewer, pipe or cable so comprised or situate; .
(c)
the treatment, cutting back, felling, removal or replacement of any hedge, tree, shrub or other growing thing which is so comprised and which is, or is in danger of becoming, damaged, diseased, dangerous, insecurely rooted or dead; .
(d)
the filling in, or clearance, of any ditch so comprised; .
but this subsection is without prejudice to the generality of the works which may, apart from it, be regarded by the court as reasonably necessary for the preservation of any land.


5)
An access order may include provision requiring the applicant to pay the respondent such sum by way of consideration for the privilege of entering the servient land in pursuance of the order as appears to the court to be fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including, in particular— .
(a)
the likely financial advantage of the order to the applicant and any persons connected with him....

So the op would need to demonstrate that the access is reasonably necessary for the preservation of the land and he may have to pay for the priviledge.


To the best of my knoweledge the Party Wall Act will only help for the parts of the extension that count as a Party Wall. The adjoining landowner is not under an oblugation to allow access for any other part of the structure.

I have just reread the OPs post. If he has a way of access the Party wall Act does indeed permit the construction if the relevant notices are served and procedure followed.

Edited by blueg33 on Tuesday 20th April 18:50

[Busamav]

Sam_68 said:

Busamav said:

No rights at all

:cough: Access to Neighbouring Land Act


An Act to enable persons who desire to carry out works to any land which are reasonably necessary for the preservation of that land to obtain access to neighbouring land in order to do so; and for purposes connected therewith.

I wouldnt consider the building of an extension to come under that act , but you may know different.

I believe It would not necessarily come under the party wall act either ,

Edited by Busamav on Tuesday 20th April 19:55

[Eggle]

Sam_68 said:

Busamav said:

No rights at all

:cough: party wall act

:cough: Access to Neighbouring Land Act

You can get a pastille for that!

Edited by Eggle on Tuesday 20th April 21:29

[Sam_68]

blueg33 said:

Since when is an extension "reasonably necessary for the preservation of that land " ?

I'd read the part of the OP's question that reads '...leave a gap for access' as suggesting consideration of future access for maintenance purposes; pointing, painting fascias etc. The Access to Neighbouring Land Act can be quite helpful here.

blueg33 said:

To the best of my knowledge the Party Wall Act will only help for the parts of the extension that count as a Party Wall.

Indeed, but since the flanking wall adjacent to the boundary constitutes a Party Wall structure, and since it's likely to be the only part of the extension that would actually benefit from access to neighbouring land to facilitate construction, the Party Wall Act is again quite helpful.

It's certainly a little misleading to say that the OP has 'no rights at all', when there are two pieces of legislation specifically tailored to dealing with these issues.

blueg33 said:

If he has a way of access...

From the picture on the OP's profile, I'd say that he is definitely a she.

The name 'Sarah' is a bit of a giveaway, too, mind...

[b2hbm]

Sam_68 said:

I'd read the part of the OP's question that reads '...leave a gap for access' as suggesting consideration of future access for maintenance purposes; pointing, painting fascias etc. The Access to Neighbouring Land Act can be quite helpful here.

Yep, I agree you often have a right for access to repair your property, but doubt that would extend to using your neighbours land to build an extension to an existing property. Well, it didn't a few years back anyway.

I think the OP should consider not only building it but maintenance. Just in case the neighbour sees the extension and then decides to build right up to his boundary as well, plant a load of leylandii or build a brick wall to hide your extension from his view ? After all, if you decided to use up all of your land, they (or subsequent owners) might just do the same.

Even if the property deeds state "allow access for repair work" then an awkward neighbour (or subsequent owners) can make life very difficult. There's no reason why you shouldn't build to the edges of your property but I'd consider the design of gutters, etc such that they could be maintained, painted, etc without needing access from neighbouring land. Then if you get access when you need it, it's a bonus.

[Aviz]

If the neighbours don't want to play ball, build the wall overhand from the inside. It will look messy, but who cares? .. it's them that has to look at it

[blueg33]

Sam_68 said:

blueg33 said:

Since when is an extension "reasonably necessary for the preservation of that land " ?

I'd read the part of the OP's question that reads '...leave a gap for access' as suggesting consideration of future access for maintenance purposes; pointing, painting fascias etc. The Access to Neighbouring Land Act can be quite helpful here.

blueg33 said:

To the best of my knowledge the Party Wall Act will only help for the parts of the extension that count as a Party Wall.

Indeed, but since the flanking wall adjacent to the boundary constitutes a Party Wall structure, and since it's likely to be the only part of the extension that would actually benefit from access to neighbouring land to facilitate construction, the Party Wall Act is again quite helpful.

It's certainly a little misleading to say that the OP has 'no rights at all', when there are two pieces of legislation specifically tailored to dealing with these issues.

blueg33 said:

If he has a way of access...

From the picture on the OP's profile, I'd say that he is definitely a she.

The name 'Sarah' is a bit of a giveaway, too, mind...

Oops. I apologise to Sarah! The "he" was Generic

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

b2hbm said:

Yep, I agree you often have a right for access to repair your property, but doubt that would extend to using your neighbours land to build an extension to an existing property. Well, it didn't a few years back anyway.

Correct and we tested this in court when one of our neighbours of old, building a new extension, just put up scaffolding on our drive without asking.

That was one of the most enjoyable cheques I've cashed .

[jet_noise]

Dear ThatPhilBrettGuy,

at the (high) risk of hijacking the thread, tell us more.
I've had serious NFH issues and had to go to court.

Did you get rid of the scaffolding or was the cheque for damages and costs?

For the OP my experience is that to the law's letter anything new must be done from your own land. Maintenance can be done from the neighbour's land if necessary and significantly easier.
One other odd thing to be aware of: just because building work has planning permission doesn't mean it's legal - in the case of extensions for example planning permission might be granted even if guttering oversails the boundary.

A good site/forum: clincky,

regards,
Jet

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

jet_noise said:

Did you get rid of the scaffolding or was the cheque for damages and costs?

It was for damages and costs. They took the scaffolding down the day I discovered it in fact. Some of that might of been me stating that as it was blocking my garage they could move it, or leave it up to me. I let them know that leaving it up to me would involve a truck, rope and towbar and any bolts I found hard to undo I'd grind off. They could collect the remains from the road. Later on we did agree a time period (of 5 days in fact) and date when they could put the scaffolding up.

It snowed that week

This came after they complained and sent every local council department around to our extension build which A) was exactly as planning passed it (that they agreed to and said 'Ooo that'll be nice' when we should them the plans before applying) and B) didn't need access to their land.

Their builders were fine about the whole thing in fact as they knew they were without a paddle... They were pissed because the house owner said we've given permission, but obviously hadn't.

[PistonReg]

jet_noise said:

Dear ThatPhilBrettGuy,
One other odd thing to be aware of: just because building work has planning permission doesn't mean it's legal - in the case of extensions for example planning permission might be granted even if guttering oversails the boundary.

Interesting and relevant to me as I'm currently purchasing and will be submitting planning for an extension. I'm told the neighbour has objected to two other planning applications recently and is in the belief that the area shouldn't change. I've heard that even when planning is granted, a neighbour can sue if your extension restricts light falling on their property, which may be relevant for me. Perosnally I'm planning to leave a 2 foot gap from his property for ease of access and to avoid these issues. Good luck though whichever you choose!

[Sam_68]

b2hbm said:

Sam_68 said:

I'd read the part of the OP's question that reads '...leave a gap for access' as suggesting consideration of future access for maintenance purposes; pointing, painting fascias etc. The Access to Neighbouring Land Act can be quite helpful here.

...but doubt that would extend to using your neighbours land to build an extension to an existing property. Well, it didn't a few years back anyway....

For the avoidance of further confusion:

I am suggesting that the Party Wall Act is used to facilitite construction of the extension (or those parts of it that adjoin the boundary and therefore fall within the scope of the Act.

The Access to Neigbouring Land Act then gives you the right to access the side of the extension in future, for maintenance purposes.

From memory; the Party Wall Act draws a distinction between construction which stands astride the boundary (and the act does NOT give automatic rights for construction of such a structure, which must be agreed with your neighbour) and one which merely abuts it (is built up against the boundary, but does not sit astride it, oversail it or undermine it with foundation), for which rights ARE automatically assumed, if you follow due process.

Hopefully that is clear enough?