Party Walls & Permitted Development

[luisdesign]

Okay experts I have a query that I could do with clarifying.

I have previous experience with permitted development applications which raise a party wall... such as a loft conversion along a rear return which raises the (party) parapet. I have appeal decision examples in support of this - where inspectors have overturned council decisions on the basis that a party wall is jointly owned and therefore forms part of the curtilage of both properties.

However, my question is related but different.

If there is no party wall, is it permitted development to create a new party wall. Such as by creating an extension whose wall sits astride the boundary line?

Also, does anyone have any appeal decisions to demonstrate this either way?

 

[jeds]

Yes, you can a build a party wall enclosing a building under s.1(2) but the adjoining owner must agree to the position of the wall astride the boundary. This would apply where is is beneficial for an adjoining owner to make use of the wall in future. If the AO does not agree however you must proceed under s.1(5) and build the wall entirely on your own land.

 

[Diyisfun]

I did that on my old property, I agreed with the neighbour I would make good & put a trellis up for him. He was happy so was I.

 

[tony1851]

If your new wall sits astride the boundary line, then by definition part of the structure is built on the adoining property and your development is not wholly within your own curtilage.
Presumably it would not then be p.d.

 

[jeds]

I presume it would be ok as long as it was within PD rules on both sides.

 

[tony1851]

The reason I brought that point up was that our LPA is taking enforcement action against a number of developers for building loft conversions with the dormer cheeks built on the full width of the party walls In addition to other issues).
The LPA claims that it is not pd because the development is not wholly within the curtilage. I also seem to recall one or two cases on Steve Speed's site where inspectors have dismissed appeals on this point.

 

[luisdesign]

The reason I brought that point up was that our LPA is taking enforcement action against a number of developers for building loft conversions with the dormer cheeks built on the full width of the party walls In addition to other issues).
The LPA claims that it is not pd because the development is not wholly within the curtilage. I also seem to recall one or two cases on Steve Speed's site where inspectors have dismissed appeals on this point.

This is contrary to the appeal decisions I'm aware of. I know of two appeals where a loft conversion included a raised party wall - and the inspectors decided that the party wall is actually within the curtilage of both properties (rather than being notionally split down the middle).

I've used these appeals as evidence for applications of my own in two separate london boroughs and in those cases the officers have ended up agreeing.

FYI, because it may well be useful for you search for this:

Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/X/09/2108111
77 Platts Lane, Hampstead, London NW3 7NL


My trouble was that the above referred cases involved raising a party wall that already existed astride the boundary and not a new wall.


Today I managed to finally get through to a planning officer from the council in question. She seemed to be suggesting that by the same reasoning that a party wall can be raised, it should be possible to "extend" a party wall laterally. There's very little to back up what she was saying though, and she couldn't point me to any cases she'd dealt with that covered this situation.

This is certainly a continued grey area and it basically stems from what exacty the meaning of curtilage is... and the fact that the GDPO and law both have distinctly different meanings.

 

[jeds]

I can see that in situations where no party wall award exists and a neighbour does not want an extension on their party wall. But where one does the building would simply be pd on each side. The neighbour would say; I'm building this wall now under pd and will add to it in the future. I don't see how that could not be pd.

 

[jeds]

I don't see a grey area. The PWA allows you to build a party wall astride the boundary as long as both parties agree. Each owner is entitled to build a wall under permitted development rules. Seems clear to me and I don't see how planners or inspectors would become involved?

 

[luisdesign]

I describe it as a grey area because you kind of have to fudge your way through the rules. As a note, you can build a wall under PD, but it is limited to 2m high.

Maybe you could say that you are in the process of builing an extension, but ran out of money...

 

[jeds]

As a note, you can build a wall under PD, but it is limited to 2m high.

Not if it's part of an extension - which it would be.

 

[luisdesign]

But it would be part of an extension for one house, but on the other property it wouldnt be part of an extension, it would just be a wall... (because your extension can't be built on someone elses land)

unless they were to claim that they are building an extension but just havent finished it like you were saying... you'd need neighbours willing to play along (or who are thinking of extending in the future anyway).

 

[jeds]

...or who are thinking of extending in the future anyway).

This is the point of it. You wouldn't agree to somebody building on your land unless you benefit in some way - i.e. to allow you to use the wall in a future extension. So the wall would just be the start of an extension.

 

[planningjungle]

Hi Luis,

The only two appeal decisions that I've seen since Oct 2008 that have dealt with this particular issue are the following:

1) 13/01/2010 - APP/N5090/X/09/2108111 (77 Platts Lane, Hampstead, London NW3 7NL)
2) 07/01/2011 - APP/U5930/X/10/2132832 (14 Lemna Road, London E11 1HX)

Both of the above appeal decisions concluded that where works involve the building up across the full width of a party wall between two properties, this does fall within the scope of Part 1 of the GPDO.

However, a few years ago I remember seeing a pre-2008 appeal decision that concluded the opposite, but unfortunately it was before I started keeping a record of such things. For info, for this particular issue, whether an appeal is pre-2008 or post-2008 doesn't really make a difference by itself, because both versions of Part 1 of the GPDO used the same phrase "Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse".

Thanks,
Steve

 

[Billthebuildernot]

Following the comments above, I do not know the exact appeal, but there was also one in 2011 or 2012 in Wandsworth, as the following article posted by the solicitors who won that appeal indicates.

I have an interest in this topic, as have received planning permission for a mansard roof with built up party walls but wish to do a dormer (whilst retaining the party walls)

http://www.morrlaw.com/news/father-and-son-team-secure-a-change-in-planning-policy

Having spoken to the planner at the council who dealt with my application, he indicated there is nothing in the permitted development rules to preclude built up party walls for lofts, but I have not been able to get anything in writing.

The planning consultant who filed my application says he has only ever known of PD's being turned down on this point.

Just leaves me with confusion!