boundry wall

briman1983

Quick question.

I'm hopeing to build an extension at the rear of the house. The site at the rear is about 31ft wide and i'm hopeing to knock the existing walls seperating me from my neighbours and use the full width of the site to build on. Is this possible or is there a minimun I have to stay back from the boundry walls.

Thanks in advance.

Briman

emanresu

You can't let the eaves of the roof or the gutters overhang your neighbour's property.

Poor Uncle Tom

You also shouldn't put foundations outside your property and you shouldn't take down any boundaries without your neighbours permission.

briman1983

So technically speaking. It's possible as long as I keep eaves and gutters on my own land. There is only one stretch of boundry wall on the right hand side with a stretch of about 20ft that I'd be hopeing to take down so as to maxamise the potential area within the extension.

Thanks for the replys

Poor Uncle Tom

And of course it is subject to the usual provisors regarding planning permission/exempted development, etc.

You would be best advised to get a good local AT to advise you on site..

DOCARCH

emanresu wrote: »

You can't let the eaves of the roof or the gutters overhang your neighbour's property.

Unless they agree to it.

If your neighbour agrees, you could 'share' the extenral wall of your extension so that they could also use the wall in the future if they were to build an extension on their side, i.e. build your external wall on the centreline of the boundary. This would maximise your extension and any future extension your neighbour might build.

Any arrangemnet like this should/must be agreed in writing with your neighbour. It's fraught with danger of later argument!

More often than not, it's just safer building your new wall just inside the existing boundary wall.

Poor Uncle Tom

DOCARCH wrote: »

Unless they agree to it.

If your neighbour agrees, you could 'share' the extenral wall of your extension so that they could also use the wall in the future if they were to build an extension on their side, i.e. build your external wall on the centreline of the boundary. This would maximise your extension and any future extension your neighbour might build.

Any arrangemnet like this should/must be agreed in writing with your neighbour. It's fraught with danger of later argument!

More often than not, it's just safer building your new wall just inside the existing boundary wall.

This can be a minefield, I've seen it cause terrible problems when neighbours go to sell their houses where overhanging/trespass becomes an issue, your legal agreement becomes a burden on title for the neighbour........

As you say, best not to do it for all concerned.

DOCARCH

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

This can be a minefield, I've seen it cause terrible problems when neighbours go to sell their houses where overhanging/trespass becomes an issue, your legal agreement becomes a burden on title for the neighbour........

As you say, best not to do it for all concerned.

Indeed - absolutly, that's why written agreement is a must (verbal agreements are forgotten very quickly).

The other side is that if your neighnbour is like minded, reasonable and you can agree, it can maxmise space for both parties.

I did it in my own house, I let my neighbour build the external wall of their extension centred on the party/boundary line with the view/agreement that it could be used as a party wall for an extension I might build in the future (I checked/ensure that when foundations were going in that they were o.k.).

muffler

briman1983 wrote: »

There is only one stretch of boundry wall on the right hand side with a stretch of about 20ft that I'd be hopeing to take down

Is this wall in your ownership? Do you have permission to knock it?

briman1983

The wall was origionally seperating my property from a small farmers field. In the past year two semi detached houses were build on this field. The wall was origionally about 4 ft high but about 5 years ago I extended this to about 6ft for privacy reasons.

The way the house to the right and left are designed I don't ever see them building a extension to either of these properties.

Mellor

briman1983 wrote: »

So technically speaking. It's possible as long as I keep eaves and gutters on my own land.

I'm not sure how good you knowledge of construction is, but how do you suggest to keep the gutters on your own land if you build on the boundary wall? (to others, I know the answer, I just wish to see the OPs idea)

briman1983 wrote: »

The way the house to the right and left are designed I don't ever see them building a extension to either of these properties.

That's irrelevant.




It can be done. You can build to the centre on the boundary wall, no replace the whole thing. For the sake of 50mm, I prefer building up against it.

PhatPiggins

Mellor wrote: »

I'm not sure how good you knowledge of construction is, but how do you suggest to keep the gutters on your own land if you build on the boundary wall? (to others, I know the answer, I just wish to see the OPs idea)



That's irrelevant.




It can be done. You can build to the centre on the boundary wall, no replace the whole thing. For the sake of 50mm, I prefer building up against it.

I'd be interested to know as well if the OP doesn't come back with an answer.

onq

Mellor wrote: »

I'm not sure how good you knowledge of construction is, but how do you suggest to keep the gutters on your own land if you build on the boundary wall? (to others, I know the answer, I just wish to see the OPs idea)

That's irrelevant.

It can be done. You can build to the centre on the boundary wall, no replace the whole thing. For the sake of 50mm, I prefer building up against it.

I'd be interested to hear what you intend to do at foundation level in that situation.

ONQ.

Poor Uncle Tom

C'mon people, this isn't a witch hunt.....

onq

briman1983 wrote: »

The wall was origionally seperating my property from a small farmers field. In the past year two semi detached houses were build on this field. The wall was origionally about 4 ft high but about 5 years ago I extended this to about 6ft for privacy reasons.

The way the house to the right and left are designed I don't ever see them building a extension to either of these properties.

Is your house the full width of the site or do you have a side passage?

ONQ.

onq

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

C'mon people, this isn't a witch hunt.....

My comment was intended for Mellor - apologies if that wasn't too clear...:o

ONQ.

briman1983

Thanks for all the replys and sorry i havent been back in the past few days>

onq wrote: »

Is your house the full width of the site or do you have a side passage?

ONQ.

The current house is a semi d with about 10 foot to the right hand side to gain access to the back garden. The proposed new extension will run the full width of the garden at the back of the house.

onq

briman1983 wrote: »

(snip)The current house is a semi d with about 10 foot to the right hand side to gain access to the back garden. The proposed new extension will run the full width of the garden at the back of the house.

People get strange ideas about maximising buildings - holding back a little never did any harm.

A 3ft side passage you would reduce your extension width from 31 ft to 28 ft circa and still maintain rear access.

That will result in a lot of real estate internally, say a maximum of 26ft with walls and insulation - that's plenty of room.

Negotiate with your neighbour to allow you to build on your shared boundary and allow future support for him off the new boundary wall.

Depending on how the negotiations go, he might share the cost of erecting that wall.

Insulating internally and using monocouche render externally sets up a relatively maintenance free relationship.

You could erect a parapet wall on the boundary to avoid overhanging and drainage issues.

Not doing this will tend to result in hassle building and maintaining your wall.

HTH

ONQ.

briman1983

onq wrote: »

People get strange ideas about maximising buildings - holding back a little never did any harm.

A 3ft side passage you would reduce your extension width from 31 ft to 28 ft circa and still maintain rear access.

That will result in a lot of real estate internally, say a maximum of 26ft with walls and insulation - that's plenty of room.

Negotiate with your neighbour to allow you to build on your shared boundary and allow future support for him off the new boundary wall.

Depending on how the negotiations go, he might share the cost of erecting that wall.

Insulating internally and using monocouche render externally sets up a relatively maintenance free relationship.

You could erect a parapet wall on the boundary to avoid overhanging and drainage issues.

Not doing this will tend to result in hassle building and maintaining your wall.

HTH

ONQ.

Thanks for the great info

onq

briman1983 wrote: »

Thanks for the great info

You're more than welcome, briman1983.

What the posters here have done is the easiest task - highlight the problems and suggest remedies.

The hardest part is down to yourself - agreeing this stuff with the neighbours.

Best of luck with it and you might post back here to let us know how you got on.

After all, if you run up against a particular snag, we need to find out to see if this is a recurrent issue we might offer advice on in the future.



ONQ.

etcetc

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

This can be a minefield, I've seen it cause terrible problems when neighbours go to sell their houses where overhanging/trespass becomes an issue, your legal agreement becomes a burden on title for the neighbour........

As you say, best not to do it for all concerned.

heres an example

imagine trying to build over the garage

onq

etcetc wrote: »

heres an example

imagine trying to build over the garage

There's no need to imagine, the adjoining propertyowner or his predecessor in title has already built over his garage.

Its not clear what the detail of the wall is, but it looks like the party wall was extended vertically upwars and rendered.

In that case I'm fairly sure the houses would be land registry and any oversailing may not necessarily establish rights.

It would be useful of some legal eagle could comment on this thread.

ONQ.

Mellor

onq wrote: »

It would be useful of some legal eagle could comment on this thread.

Not going to happen.

onq

Mellor wrote: »

Not going to happen.

Why so negative, Mellor?

ONQ.

Mellor

onq wrote: »

Why so negative?

ONQ.

I'm not being negitive. You are here long enough to be familar with the rules of the forum. A legal opinion, that may be taken as applicable to all similar cases, would be deleted very quickly. And even still, I doubt anybody who was educated enough to know the actual answer for in the case above, whould be foolish to post it. Being legal eagles, they are more than familar with liability.

onq

Mellor wrote: »

I'm not being negitive. You are here long enough to be familar with the rules of the forum. A legal opinion, that may be taken as applicable to all similar cases, would be deleted very quickly. And even still, I doubt anybody who was educated enough to know the actual answer for in the case above, whould be foolish to post it. Being legal eagles, they are more than familar with liability.

I am familiar with liability.
I am also familiar with negotiating with adjoining property owners

(i) on commercial sites in Dublin city as well as
(ii) residential sites in the suburbs.

In such situations building up against an existing structure occurs more frequently than not.

This is often required for best practice in terms of site usage.
This is also to avoid the generation of poorly ventilated semi-spaces 150-300mm wide.
Such spaces can offer harbourage for rats and host debris and damp generating dirt and smells.
Most building owners I have dealt with will reach an agreement where there is a benefit to them.

My comment above was seeking a definitive legal comment in regard to rights that might be established over registered title.
This is to assist the OP but I agree it might be judged off-topic given the strict interpretation of moderation prevelant in these forums.

But I put it to you that this itself is a inconsistent - this is the construction and planning forum.
We regularly discuss and advise on planning law AND interpret the building regulations - another branch of law.
Not allowing discussion about flying freehold and oversailing rights as they might apply to domestic extensions seems arbitrary, perverse and unreasonable in light of this.


ONQ

Mellor

onq wrote: »

I am familiar with liability.

I seem to remember it was I who had to explain liability regarding websites to you. Have you forgotten that situation already?

Most building owners I have dealt with will reach an agreement where there is a benefit to them.

I agree. If it can be arranged then it is almost always best. However, the majority of threads upon here, and users seeking advice are regarding situations were discussing the issue didn't work. This is the key issue here.

My comment above was seeking a definitive legal comment in regard to rights that might be established over registered title.
This is to assist the OP but I agree it might be judged off-topic given the strict interpretation of moderation prevelant in these forums.

I never said it was off topic. It is against the rules as I explained above, and as you already know. Please do not make a claim like that again.

We regularly discuss and advise on planning law AND interpret the building regulations - another branch of law.

True. Planning regulations, building regulations, and TGDs (although not actually laws) are discussed here al length. Almost always in agreement, and advice is given out often.
How ever, the key word is regulations. Which are rather black and white with little or no room for interpretation. If a situation arises where interpretation might apply, the poster is referred to their PA.

Not allowing discussion about flying freehold and oversailing rights as they might apply to domestic extensions seems arbitrary, perverse and unreasonable in light of this.

Not covered by simple regulations, and the area is littered with many many examples of case law. Many of which are conflicting. It would be foolish to attempt to form a statement that covers all situations.
It would be even more foolish for boards.ie to publish this statement



My above post was clear. As are the rules. Infraction given for repeatedly getting out of line.

If you want to discuss the charter you are welcome to, but not here. Go to feedback.

etcetc

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055839440

posted the overhanging/oversailing query over in legal discussion forum

kinda interested in responses