 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Situation - three house, 90s built, terrace. I own the middle, I've J&L to the left, S&T to the right.
J&L have a conservatory that's been 'upgraded' to full extension levels of quality. Myself and S&T are looking to extend to the same extent (3.9m) as J&L, as a joint project.
The drawings we've had show the outer wall of S&T's extension will be inset by around 30cm from the edge of their house. We're not sure why the guy who did the drawings has done this, but he's not the quickest on the emails. S&T want the exterior wall of their extension to follow that of their house, for obvious reasons!
It may be because there is a 15ft high wall that runs alongside their house (and others on the housing estate), but not exactly parallel to it - it's closer to the house at the rear than the front. The distance from house wall to big wall is the width of their side-access path - around 2 regular paving slabs. Could there be a rule about the space required between house wall, and big wall (which they do not own)?
Anyway...
We want to get our planning application in ASAP. If we submit with this unexplained inset, PP is granted, and then we build without the inset, following the line of the house's current exterior wall, will we (well, S&T) be in trouble? On the drawings there's a red dotted line covering the 'extent of works'. This line is slightly outside of the drawn extension, but follows the line that we'd actually like to build along.
WWSTWD?
Thor,
PM me here or on FB and I'll talk you through it.
andy
At a guess, if there is a reason, the inset is to ensure that the toe of the foundations (generally the concrete steps out by around 225mm) remains within the land owned by you and your neighbour. There are other ways of doing foundations but generally people want the cheapest least complicated way of doing things.
Yes, S&T would be in trouble if they built bigger than the planning permission plans.
The planning dept will probably know why the inset is there - there will be a reason for it (quite often the planners want to make it clear that an extension is just that).
It may also have been to avoid issues with the foundations of the big wall - which wouldn't have been designed to support a two storey extension.
Either way, exceeding the agreed plans is a dangerous game and would come to light when the property is sold.
Thanks all, really appreciate it!
Andy, I'll drop you a line later, thanks!
Are these 2-storey extensions? If not have your permitted development rights been revoked?
As for the inset many many people misunderstand party wall issues and often set back into their own property to avoid any doubt.
Developments are rarely built exactly according to the planning drawings - the working drawings often throw up criteria that mean walls are shifted, opening dimensions changed, ridge heights etc... Most go unchallenged and undetected, but an inset would be noticed and could really bad news. Once you have your planning permission in hand it should be no problem to go back for a non-material amendment to kick the wall out parallel with the existing.
thanks reluctantnomad. they're single story with pitched roof, however extend beyond permitted development. i've checked J&L's extension, and another done on the development and both of those also are inset from the edge of the building - looks like it is standard!
The drawings for 'my' extension go up to my property boarder, however J&L's extension doesn't quite go up to theirs, so the gap between has been accounted for in my drawings.
Neighbours at a previous house applied for an extension. We decided not to have one on our front at the same time. This peeved them. They went on hols and forgot to mention that work would be starting Monday morning.
Monday night we came home to find our garden dug up and shuttering in place for footings. Took time off work to speak to builder and he was adamant that to build the wall on the centre line he needed footings on our garden. I told him if he laid any concrete I would dig it out.
He got the architect down and by chance the building inspector called. Both agreed with me that no footings could go on my property without my consent. Wall was built with an offset of approx 30cm. Neighbours were less than happy when they came home.
If they had asked us nicely we would have agreed, but they thought they could pull a fast one.
Maybe OP can see an offset for similar reasons.
sounds like a nightmare! the offset in question is inwards from their own property - their property boundary is roughly 80cm from their wall, if that makes sense.
Sometimes this kind of thing is purely a visual point, in that planners often like an extension to be "subordinate" to the main property or distinctly recognisable as different. It could be worth putting a proposal to the planners for "pre-app" advice. Yours is also fundamentally different, being over two properties.
You can run the foundations inset and cantilever the floor slab to the line where you want it to be.
I echo the advice to talk to the planning department. They will also advise whether a single application for you and S&T is OK or if you need two.
Apart from planning, you also need building control. The situation sarawak described is controlled under the Party Wall Act, I think S&T will need to notify the owners of the big wall.
thanks again all. Greybeard - i'll mention to S&T about notifying the owners of the bog wall (though I've no idea who that would be - it extends for 40m or so at a guess along numerous properties). we were thinking about getting pre-building building control checks - that's a thing right?
as for joint PP, this is in response to my single PP getting declined last year - basically my extension cannot extend to a point where it is visible at a 45 degree angle from S&T's rear window, thus curtailing the extent to which I can extend. Even though we both want to extend the same amount, and could both have PP applications in at the same time, rules are rules, and so the PP departments said the only way to go about it was a joint application.