Pal of mine lives in the Manchester area. It seems the house next door to her plans an extension.

OK .. but this guy plans a double storey extension right to the border line on one side of the house and a single storey right up to her border adjoining this.

Now the proposed building falls just 0.1m of the 3 m from the wall of her kitchen outhouse (typical 1930s semis) on her side - but fails the 45 degree rule from the centre of her rear dining room window and from the next-door but one's point of view - obliterates all light into one habitable room on his side and fails the 3 m regulation by a few inches. The lady in question has already lost light into the same room in her house by an extension by her other neighbour.


Now when she called in on us for a visit during a visit to Llandudno and Bodnant Gardens - we looked up the plans on the internet and checked out the Party Wall Act.

Quite worringly s18 of this law says that a person can dig foundations for a new building on the property and have right of access on the neighbour's land to build and maintain the building. That does not sound right or fair to me somehow.

Also - it seems that the combined effect of all this would reduce all light into the rear of her house by a whopping 30% - and she has been told by "planning" that they just pass plans if they "meet regulations - legal issues must then be sorted thereafter".

Again that does not sound right to me. This is an area I know very little about as we live in rural touristy zone here - so can anyone clarify what the laws on this are. We gather from an "insider mole" at our local council that central government has set some target for passing plans to stimulate the flagging housing industry as well.

As expected, I will be first to stick my oar in here:

As such laws are different in Scotand from England and Wales I can only speak in generalities......It seems that "the regulations" are a bit like the Bible or the Quoran in that to the skilled interpreter many rules made in one section can be altered or modified by rules in another section and this is why - just like in religion - it is the theologians/planning experts that have the full set of complexities at their hands and the layman has to just accept the said interpretations or take the rule to court to try to have it changed.

That said, as I have just advised our Andrew....it is sometimes wise to take such conflicts to a very skilled conveyancing solicitor as they deal with arguments like this day in and day out. It may cost his or her fees but once a ruling has been given by the planning people to a knowledgeable conveyancing solicitor the client should then know where they stand.

If you ask a solicitor they will charge you for their advice and it will almost certainly be that they need to know more and there is no certainty of winning.

The main cause of neighbor disputes is whether they get on with you or not - have they consulted you? Have you spoken to them? A quiet word in their ear may save megabucks on legal fees.

As to their legal position I understand you have no right to light so don't hold your breath.

Red

papa_umau wrote:As expected, I will be first to stick my oar in here:

As such laws are different in Scotand from England and Wales I can only speak in generalities......It seems that "the regulations" are a bit like the Bible or the Quoran in that to the skilled interpreter many rules made in one section can be altered or modified by rules in another section and this is why - just like in religion - it is the theologians/planning experts that have the full set of complexities at their hands and the layman has to just accept the said interpretations or take the rule to court to try to have it changed.

That said, as I have just advised our Andrew....it is sometimes wise to take such conflicts to a very skilled conveyancing solicitor as they deal with arguments like this day in and day out. It may cost his or her fees but once a ruling has been given by the planning people to a knowledgeable conveyancing solicitor the client should then know where they stand.

Cheers Papa. I have told the lady in question to see a solicitor. It seems the first council surveyor has referred the extension to the planning committee for discussion. They only do that if there is a problem. It seems he went on paternity leave and a woman surveyor took over - who passed it. It seems that the local councillor was then contacted - and he put in a recommendation for "panel". So for the consumer then - it seems that those passing these plans will not have the same opinion - which makes this profession seem all too similar to the medical profession

It seems though that an architect can draw up a plan - but does not need to take account of statute law. Historian - look up the "Prescriptions Act 1932/1959" - and there are policies within council planning departments which state that an extension cannot reduce daylight by more than 20% - and introduced the 45 degree rule in 2006 or something. There appear to be ambiguities in the Party Wall Act of 1996 - amended 2004 from my inquisitive reading up - and this is why I think there is room for discussion on a consumer rights message board.

Yes, I agree that this is one of the reasons for consumer boards like this one to exist.

If people are able to talk about such problems - even if they are not expert enough to actually solve them - they can still help to direct the troubled ones to the places where specific help CAN be found.

Another point which has not been raised yet is where two parties cannot reach agreement they can take this conflict to arbitration. The Arbitration Service - it's in the book - is not used nearly often enough in situtions like these as many people wrongly think that arbitration is only for big union arguments.

papa_umau wrote:Yes, I agree that this is one of the reasons for consumer boards like this one to exist.

If people are able to talk about such problems - even if they are not expert enough to actually solve them - they can still help to direct the troubled ones to the places where specific help CAN be found.

Another point which has not been raised yet is where two parties cannot reach agreement they can take this conflict to arbitration. The Arbitration Service - it's in the book - is not used nearly often enough in situtions like these as many people wrongly think that arbitration is only for big union arguments.

Many thanks .. I have told the people concerned to read this board and join in the discussions.

The latest I hear is that the council has agreed to change the panel hearing on this case. I gather there are issues - else it would not get to that level? But I've forwarded the link to this thread to the people directly involved in this matter. I hope they join in and join in all other chats on here too.

OK .. so folk want to extend/improve homes. I say they do this without taking value from their neighbours and do so tastefully and without compromising neighbours unduly.


OK so I'm an idealist. I would never knowingly hurt another and if I had a "dream house in suburbia" -I'd make sure I kept within tasteful boundaries and considered the needs of others. But then that's ME! A person who'd never knowingly or deliberately upset someone and who would negotiate at all times and see reason from the other point of view. I guess I am one odd Swiss cuckoo in the nest!

Sadly Marianna, ( I hope it is OK to use your name as you gave it to me in public ), it is true that many people are thoughtless, care-less and selfish when they are doing what they need to do to give themselves a good life.

It is when people ARE like this that often the law or the professionals need to be brought in to solve conflict. Once the facts are put before people by people who do not have an axe to grind the offenders will - in many cases - often see the error of their ways and a satisfactory compromise will be reached.

papa_umau wrote:Sadly Marianna, ( I hope it is OK to use your name as you gave it to me in public ), it is true that many people are thoughtless, care-less and selfish when they are doing what they need to do to give themselves a good life.

I actually like to be called by my real name. Most call me Maril .. Swiss shorten names. I preferred Maril to Marli or Marchen .. - especially this latter as it sounds like "Martian"
If you understand me


I can take a joke . but sometimes .. it gets a bit much in leisure unwind/sound off/vent spleen politely (hopefully?) on t'internet!

YES .. I agree folk are thoughtless. I was quite shocked at the replies on a forum to do with "housing/home improvements" whereby the general concensus was "sod the neighbour - think of extra room space" I cannot see this as "good life". Folk make rooms from storage space? WHY? You end up with untidy clutter as there;s nowhere to store stuff neatly. The relative in question already lost light due to another neighbour in a habitable room on one side of this house. She tells me that she smirked with gloating satisfaction as this fool had then to carry his lawn mowe through his kitchen and store it in the "living room" which was once a garage to house this. and then moan he had no garden for his kids to play as he then erected a huge shed in a postage stamp garden and took out all the play space for the kids! He then had the cheek to ask this once or twice removed relative if his kids could play in her garden - which she wisely refused

Umm rooms.. mean clutter.. housework. I hire a gardener and LOVE my al fresco "dining room".

It is when people ARE like this that often the law or the professionals need to be brought in to solve conflict. Once the facts are put before people by people who do not have an axe to grind the offenders will - in many cases - often see the error of their ways and a satisfactory compromise will be reached.

Ah,.. but now this realtive discovers that this guy will not be living there. He is renting it as apartments and the council DO NOT KNOW OF THIS .. and I think she has a serious case now on that basis.


What do you think?


Cheers

Marianna

As far as I am concerned Maril...is that "right is might" and the people who are fair and decent and honest and unselfish should be the ones that always win out in the end.

Complex individual cases are hard to quantify completely in a medium like this one.

Sitting on the fence a bit....? Maybe !

If you need advice get it from a planning consultant not a solicitor. If I need advice on my health I go to a doctor not a whorehouse

Red

As I already explained - if you had been paying attention - is that in Scotland all conveyeancing MUST be done by a solicitor and this makes them VERY skilled at the job.

The planners are too far up their own backsides to give unbiased advice to anyone !

Just like with the real Bible the planners Bible is so complex and contradictory that advice from one planner will be completely different from another planner for the same question.

You obviously have NO experience of dealing with town planners.

I DO !

papa_umau wrote:As I already explained - if you had been paying attention - is that in Scotland all conveyeancing MUST be done by a solicitor and this makes them VERY skilled at the job.

The planners are too far up their own backsides to give unbiased advice to anyone !

Just like with the real Bible the planners Bible is so complex and contradictory that advice from one planner will be completely different from another planner for the same question.

You obviously have NO experience of dealing with town planners.

I DO !

Indeed - planners are not solicitors and as we look deeper into this - we find planners seem oblivious of the laws in real terms. Lady in question had the the application brought before the council planning committee who have now voted to pay a site visit as they can see all the pitfalls on paper now - but in fairness want to see for themselves before voting.

Planners apparently were concerned with it "ticking boxes to policy" and no account taken of the far reaching consequences on the neighbourhood and adjoining properties. Lady has engaged a chartered surveyor who tells her that "planning and building regs are two different things and that planning does not take account of statute laws and snags emerge when the person commences his or her building".


Now given folk can pay thousands of pounds to architects/planners etc - which results in a successful application at council level - but then never gets built because they then find it fails to meet certain legal criteria on Party Wall Act/Prescriptions Act (Easment clauses) and other general issues such as rights of access/road hazards (skips/extra traffic/parking facilities for the workmen and the neighbours) - we then enter a very murky pond of rip -off/rights/value for money.

Thus the real rip off merchants are .. the planners and the architects ...

With you one hundred percent on that one Maril !

I too find it perplexing that the planning statutes often do not agree with the actual law and with their inbuilt power the planners can virtually do what they like with little recourse to right, wrong, or anything in between.