Help With Garage Conversion

[oldbutnotdead]

You'll struggle to make a case for a foot but if it is obviously part of your property (directly in line with a side wall or whatever) then go for it. You now know your neighbours are quite prepared to assert control so give them some back.

 

[thomp1983]

It wouldn't take much arguing I'm the only house in the street who's driveway dog legs round the neighbours garden away from my own garage that sits on the boundary line.

I'm not interested in the piece of land and I'm not going to reclaim it just to spite them

 

[mrrusty]

The point is you have no right to extend your foundations into their land without their permission, but if its all arguably on your land, you can tell them to bring it on if they want the battle, which they will probably lose. In fact, just the threat of a formal boundary dispute might be enough, because it would blight the properties against a sale until resolved, so if you are staying put for the forseeable.....

 

[thomp1983]

I don't think either of us is planning to move but surely if foundations can't spill over a boundary how does anyone ever build a wall on a boundary?

They knew the foundations were going to be there and were happy with the fact when it was discussed prior to them being poured

 

[mrrusty]

and were happy with the fact when it was discussed prior to them being poured

so they gave permission - no problem then

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I don't think either of us is planning to move but surely if foundations can't spill over a boundary how does anyone ever build a wall on a boundary?

They knew the foundations were going to be there and were happy with the fact when it was discussed prior to them being poured

You can easily do eccentric foundations.

 

[thomp1983]

Well the neighbour has complained to the council so I'm receiving a visit from the planning bloke tomorrow so that will be nice

 

[thomp1983]

A guy from the council came as arranged, 2 complaints have been made from the same person, 1 regarding the height of the single gatage roof being raised the second that I changed the rear extension roof to a flat roof instead of a mono pitch and raised the eaves height of it.

We had a walk around the property I explained the changes, we took some measurements we both agreed on (the natural ground level of the property is varied so we agreed where we would measure each point from).

Rear extension he thinks will fall under permitted development regards eaves height of 290cm, single garage is 260cm to eaves so 100mm over pd, he did say he'd ignore the extra height the rubber covering will add as its an insignificant amount.

Next step from the council is he'll check the measurements against pd, and he expects me to put in a retrospective planning application that's accurate to what's been built.

I asked want happens if I don't want to resubmit or its rejected and he said it would go to enforcement, I then pointed out for enforcement to be successful someone has to have suffered a material loss or harm through my extra 10cm which won't happen and he said he can't comment but it is only a minor breach.

He did say I'm free to carry on building as I was but he has to inform me that if enforcement required it to be removed they wouldn't be liable for any costs from this point forward as I could of stopped which I've no issue with.

So it seems apart from paperwork to complete and handing over a couple of hundred quid nothing will be coming of the complaint as I suspected at the start.

Chris

 

[oldbutnotdead]

Hang on. If he's saying it's pd (as in permitted development) then unless you're on an estate with no pd rights you don't have to apply for anything (unless you want a certificate of lawful development to keep solicitors quiet in the future if you sell the place). Permitted development is what it says it is- permitted.

 

[thomp1983]

The side garage won't be pd so will need resubmitting as I'm over 2.5m eaves height right on the boundary.

The original planning wasn't pd as it's a wrap around extension but I think the planning officer who came out is taking the view that if the parts of the complaint would fall under pd if they were individual parts then they wouldn't chase enforcement.

 

[thomp1983]

Received my official response to complaint from he Council, rear part being changed to flat roof is under pd heights so no issue, the single garage being raised by 100mm requires retrospective permission, I've 28 to respond so somewhere around day 27 I'll resubmit plans for the alterations.

 

[mrrusty]

Your neighbours need a dose of reality. I would ask them kindly to withdraw any complaint over 100mm (in fact they may now need to write a note of approval) or you will move to plan B - the bamboo tactic - you can grow fast growing bamboo that grows to 6-8 metres, and there is nothing anyone can do under e.g. high hedge legislation because it's a grass. If they want to be a********s you can be too.

 

[thomp1983]

Dragged my feet over submitting a section 73 retrospective application, now I have the neighbour in question has put in their complaint for the following,

Loss of light to kitchen as obscured glass door is the only opening on west elevation.

I didn't use reclaimed brick which they think would of looked better than the new ones

The depth of the fascia looks out of place, it's 405mm fascia due to there being 150mm insulation in the warm roof

The Guttering isn't in keepeing with the area as it's black, 6 houses the same on our bit 3 have white Guttering including the neighbours, 1 has grey and 2 are black including mine which was black before the work started.

The obscured window I'm adding will remove privacy from their garden.

I can't see the council paying much attention to the above apart from the light issue, I'm due a decision by 31st December.

Chris

 

[oldbutnotdead]

Don't think right to light applies to all rooms, only 'habitable' ones (bedrooms, sitting rooms, dining rooms). And if the alleged loss of light is caused by a wall existing (as against being caused by the extra 100mm above pd height) then neighbour is right out of luck there.
Good luck anyway

 

[Lucas01789]

Dragged my feet over submitting a section 73 retrospective application, now I have the neighbour in question has put in their complaint for the following,

Loss of light to kitchen as obscured glass door is the only opening on west elevation.

I didn't use reclaimed brick which they think would of looked better than the new ones

The depth of the fascia looks out of place, it's 405mm fascia due to there being 150mm insulation in the warm roof

The Guttering isn't in keepeing with the area as it's black, 6 houses the same on our bit 3 have white Guttering including the neighbours, 1 has grey and 2 are black including mine which was black before the work started.

The obscured window I'm adding will remove privacy from their garden.

I can't see the council paying much attention to the above apart from the light issue, I'm due a decision by 31st December.

Chris

Only just come to this thread. Sounds like your neighbours are on to a loser here. The Council will be considering the 'fall back' position i.e. that a 2.5m high extension would be PD, therefore they are in effect only considering the impact that an extra 100mm would cause and that would be FA.

As the previous poster said, the impact on loss of light is only a factor when it comes to habitable rooms, not non-habitable ones such as a kitchen.

Installing a ground floor window anywhere, regardless of whether clear or obscure glazed is PD. It's also PD at first floor level unless it's on the side elevation and either non-opening or obscure glazed, so I can't see how your window can possibly have a negative impact on their privacy.