would you buy this house?

etcetc

spotted this the other day and went to view it

i couldnt believe the scale of overhang and cant for the life of me believe that current owner would have given permission for it

the neighbours certainly have taken liberties to such an extent that any chance of building over the garage is impossible

anybody know of similiar cases and what approaches could be taken to resolve issue

what happens if gutter leaks??

Victor

Haggle the vendor. Or get them to include an agreement with the neighbour that they (the neighbour and their successors, etc.) will permit an extension to be added, with the required alterations to the eaves, downpipes, etc. I suspect you won't be as bad off as you are suggesting.

Regarding adverse possession, can you occupy an eaves? There is case law to say you can't occupy a ditch (fence was moved from one side of ditch to other and the "occupier" of the ditch tried to claim adverse possession).

onq

+1 the sound advice by Victor, with the folowing qualification:

The external side wall looks like its built on top of the existing party wall at ground floor level and the comments below are based on this assumption, which may not be correct.
In the present situation for you to extend a matching extension you mayhave to interfere with both the eaves detail and the roof covering and take support from the wall.
You might also have to install a valley gutter and find a route for the rainwater to final outfall, which at the present moment is discharging onto "your" garage's flat roof!
Before talking to the owner or the adjoining owner, you should obtain some facts on the existing building, which looks like it was extended after original completion.
You should then take competent legal advice on what rights the adjoining owner may have established by this and whether any agreements are already in place.

Apart from the spectre of oversailing rights or rights of adverse possession [which may only apply to a use - and an eaves may not be a use] I would be doubtful of you being able to treat this eaves as if it were "overhanging branches" which you could cut away up to the centreline of the wall and "throw back" - very dodgy!

THere may also be the issue of owneship of the wall and encroachment onto your title by half of it and whether this results on you owning half of it or you having lost this land while gaining no rights of support.

Land law isn't contract law, but the resolution of any dispute may rest on whether it is fair that you get no benefit from the wall above ground floor level which has encroached on your title - and this still leaves the existing eaves situation.
Negotiation and agreement will best serve you going forward and what kind of agreement and the preliminaries to and detail of it I comment on below.

If there is no agreement and if the existing owner didn't do as Victor suggested you could approach the adjoining owner directly if it was your intent to extend immediately and it was material to your purchase of the property.

The oversail isn't huge, but it is significant in terms of building an equal extension on the other house as this will require modifications to the existing roof and wall - the roof to allow weathering details including a centre valey to be installed and the wall to allow tieing in of the new front and rear elevations, assuming traditional materials and detailing are to be used.

Ireland does not have the same party wall legislation as English law has.
See;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Wall_etc._Act_1996
And;
http://www.partywallsurveyors.org/party-wall-advice-for-building-owners.html

In Ireland Party Walls are deemed part of adjoining properties and are entitled to obtain support and continue to receive support.

There is a question over whether in and of itself, a property is entitled to receive weathering protection from another property, with some interpreting the law strictly as only support, while others taking the - in my opinion correct - view that exposing an internal wall to weathering by the elements will lead to a degradation of the building fabric and thereby aloss of support.

On most building sites weathering sheets are erected by competent contractors to avoid this, but of course a thin sheet of weathering material cannot replace the insulation value of an entire building which could have signficant financial and environmental implications for any building so affected.

---

Lessons learnt in commercial architectural practice may be applied to this situation.
In my experience of dealing with adjoining properties you are wise to agree all outstanding issues prior to commencement with representatives of the adjoining owner.

The content of any agreement may involve a working method statement, drawings and if necessary details showing exactly what work is to be done with information exchanged on bona fides, contacts and insurances.

It is very wise to agree a schedule of condition with adjoining propertyholders with a comprehensive set of photographs and for your professionals to form an opinion of the structure, internal finishes and weathering layer prior to commencement.

You may be asked, or deemed it necessary to request your builder to take out suitable Non-negligence Insurance cover in addition to the normal insurances, to allow for claims due to unforeseen events when all other work and the design of the work has been executed competently and in compliance.

This is usually only requried for older properties in the city centre for example - under normal conditions of foreseeability and hazard the standard insurances will usually suffice.

Bear in mind though that you are coming to this, not the adjoining propertyholder and you may be asked to pay his professional's fees should he choose to employ them and any resolution of a dispute may hold you to this.

One way ot address this at an early stage is to be pro-active and agree to appoint someone jointly to advise you both with both parties paying for independent, impartial advice.
I'm not sure how well this might look in the event that you fall out and a dispute arose in our adversarial courts system, but if acceptable its a more affordable way to go than having two sets of professionals facing each other across a party wall and you paying for both.

Whaever you do, agree all the details for the work and be clear on the implications for both parties prior to commencement, which should include, inter alia;
Construction details, method statements, refuse storage, segregation and removal, the extent of demolitions, temporary weathering, temporary support, the kind of machinery to be used vs noise levels, the hours of working as well as the building programme and start finish dated.

---

At the end of the day you should take competent legal advice before moving on any of this and keep all draft agreements or contracts clearly in draft form until signed off on.
Where we have been involved in drafting heads of agreement we use the term "subject to contract - contract denied" and your solicitor can advise better than I.
For the sake of clarity and not to tout for business, I am architecturally trained, not legally trained, but property disputes may involve members of my profession.

Apologies for the length of it for a first post Mods and please advise if I've broken any forum charter rules.

HTH

ONQ

Maximilian

I wouldn't have thought it's too unusual. It looks as though it existed since construction. May be dealt with in the title deeds to the property.

As regards leaks etc. would you be put off buying an apartment for fear of an overhead apartment leaking or going on fire? Or a tree next door falling over and crashing through your window. That's why people get insurance.

I wouldn't be put off buying it at all. What I would do is express your concern to your solicitor and have him/her investigate it. The contract could even be made conditional on getting the matter dealt with. There are ways of dealing with these kinds of issues - if you really want the house, go for it.

onq

Assuming all these houses were built around the same time and are essentially the same, both adjoining properties differ in some respects but not in others.

The subject property and the house to the right have lounges which project in front of the bedrooms above - the adjoinng house to the left does not - at least in respect of the part we can see, the room above being in line with the garage.

The subject property and the house to the right have brickwork ground floors and renders above - the adjoinng house to the left does not - being brickwork all the way up.

Unusually the brickwork of the house to the right doesn't match the subject house although they are linked by a full height party wall, while the brickwork of the "extension" to the left matches the subject house - as far as can be seen by this photograph.

Also the roofing tiles seem to match in terms of colour and weathering which might suggest all was done ab initio or at least very soon afterwards - which is why a full history would be useful in establishing the rights of each owner, should this become an issue.

ONQ.

etcetc

thanks for replies guys

vendors agent is pleading ignorance on subject still waiting for them to get back with vendors solicitors take on it

as it is an estate sale i suspect neighbours got some sort of vague verbal agreement from eldery owner

it is definetely an extension, all other over garage extensions on this road were built straight up and not impinging on adjoining owners

onq

etcetc wrote: »

thanks for replies guys

vendors agent is pleading ignorance on subject still waiting for them to get back with vendors solicitors take on it

as it is an estate sale i suspect neighbours got some sort of vague verbal agreement from eldery owner

it is definetely an extension, all other over garage extensions on this road were built straight up and not impinging on adjoining owners

By "straight up" do you mean with the party wall ending topped by a parapet and the drainage being kept within the curtilage of the extended property?

That seems to be one resolution if you look at recent conditions from local authorities where they prevent by condition any part of the development going onto adjoining land.

ONQ.

Victor

Look at the location map in the satellite view http://www.property.ie/property-for-sale/130-Glasnevin-Avenue-Glasnevin-Dublin-11/505749/

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=swyjycgg9ch2&scene=29504233&lvl=2&sty=b

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=swycbngg9dsv&scene=53136258&lvl=2&sty=b

Roof layout is consistent with the over-garage room being an extension. The extension doesn't appear to be the full depth of the house, possibly due to the window on the half landing on the stairs. An innovative solution would be to build your extension at the rear of the garage, thereby minimising interference with their roof, although the planning authority might prefer symmetry.

Maximilian wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought it's too unusual.

Indeed, but humans are intelligent, people are stupid.

It looks as though it existed since construction. May be dealt with in the title deeds to the property.

No, I'd be 90%+ certain that its a addition, given that most of the houses on the road have nothing over the garage.

As regards leaks etc. would you be put off buying an apartment for fear of an overhead apartment leaking or going on fire?

Well, is the drainage for the garage roof adequate for the garage roof + wall + neighbours roof?

Or a tree next door falling over and crashing through your window. That's why people get insurance.

Speaking of which, there are some (very?) mature specimens in the read gardens that might merit monitoring.

- if you really want the house, go for it.

Agreed.

onq wrote: »

There is a question over whether in and of itself, a property is entitled to receive weathering protection from another property, with some interpreting the law strictly as only support, while others taking the - in my opinion correct - view that exposing an internal wall to weathering by the elements will lead to a degradation of the building fabric and thereby aloss of support.

I would think under the time immemorial rule that support extends beyond purely structural support, although some cheapskates of times past only put stud partitions on their side of the party line.

Bear in mind though that you are coming to this, not the adjoining propertyholder and you may be asked to pay his professional's fees should he choose to employ them and any resolution of a dispute may hold you to this.

The solution is to have the vendor resolve the matter and/or reduce the amount offered for the property.

onq wrote: »

The subject property and the house to the right have brickwork ground floors and renders above - the adjoinng house to the left does not - being brickwork all the way up.

Unusually the brickwork of the house to the right doesn't match the subject house although they are linked by a full height party wall, while the brickwork of the "extension" to the left matches the subject house - as far as can be seen by this photograph.

I imagine the subject house and the extended house have had the brick treated with on of those red "paints" and the joints re-pointed or painted.

Also the roofing tiles seem to match in terms of colour and weathering which might suggest all was done ab initio or at least very soon afterwards - which is why a full history would be useful in establishing the rights of each owner, should this become an issue.

This is modestly odd, but presumably the tile was still available, whether new or second hand when the extension was done or that they were salvaged from say the rear roof. It looks like the standard 1940s-1960s concrete tile. The extension would appear to pre-date 1995, so it has had at least 15 years to weather in.

Also, look at security. The rear boundary appears to be a historic hedge and the garage roof provides potential access to the upstairs windows. http://ims0.osiemaps.ie/website/publicviewer/main.aspx#V1,714736,739181,8

Check the roof for any excess build-up of moss.

Jo King

onq wrote: »

Also the roofing tiles seem to match in terms of colour and weathering which might suggest all was done ab initio or at least very soon afterwards - which is why a full history would be useful in establishing the rights of each owner, should this become an issue.

ONQ.

Only the tiles to the front of the house are visible. Some householders when having an over garage extension built, put the new tiles to the rear or side of the house and use the salvage from the hip of the existing roof to tile the new section of roof thus giving a uniform look to the front of the house.

Builderfromhell

I would be surprised if the neighbour's grant of permission allowed him to build a structure part of which overhangs the neighbours property.

Some kind of agreement must have been reached while extension was being built as scaffolding would have been needed over the flat roof to complete the extension.

Building on boundary lines is a complex issue (to me). I've often wondered what the legal situation is where an extension is built up to the centre line of the boundary with a neighbour. All to the satisfaction of neighbour and planning authority. The foundations must then extend into the neighbours property by about 300mm, one foot. This could then make it difficult for neighbour to extend their properties.

Victor

Builderfromhell wrote: »

The foundations must then extend into the neighbours property by about 300mm, one foot. This could then make it difficult for neighbour to extend their properties.

There are several novel solutions.
* Re-use the existing garage foundations, but have it checked out by an engineer. If they haven't had a problem in 50 years, they may be OK to use.
* Where it is simply along a boundary line and not a party wall, seek agreement and design the wall so that he neighbour can also build against it. It might also be possible to agree to build two extensions, thereby improving cost efficiency.
* Have you engineer design an eccentrically loaded foundation. lightly more complicated, but shouldn't be a problem for a competent builder.

onq

As I've had pointd out in another forum, building an exemoted development along a party boundary is potentially fraught with pitfalls legally.
These are the same pitfalls arise when you build along it by consent andwith permission.

An application for permission, or exempted development, must lie within the curtilage of a dwelling.
Building along a boundary means half the wall and usually half a traditional foundation - as builderfromhell has pointed out - lie in another title.
This appears to be so whether matters proceed by agreement or not.

I have never seen a formal agreement yielding consent, only consent by acquiescence and occassionally by written letter, as opposed to lease or contract.
On the other hand, I have never seen a local authority step in to challenge this.
That's not to say they don't or haven't, just that it is outside my experence.
But that may not be the case for much longer.

Conditions in relation to encroachment on other titles are now becoming more commonplance.
This in and of itself gives rise to more concern if it originally was intended to building along the boundary or if consent is subsequently obtained to do so.
People can change once they see a permission amd ,ay be inclined to see the benefits of building along the boundary and being offered support for their own later extension.
However, with apparently increased vigilance and foresight in permission wording varying this may become more difficult and involve formal agreements.

---

In relation to extending over the garage, the airspace immediately over the garage is clear apart from the gutter and eaves, and the ground beneath seems to be in the owners possession.

A while ago there would have been a concern to match the existing extension, but nowadays the reliance more on modern solutions allows for a more creative approach.
It is possible to use engineered mini piles to support steel posts within the garage supporting a steel beam structure at 1st floor level.
A lightweight insulated construction could be built supported by this steelwork, occupying the space left by the adjoining extension.

One concern is leaving a gutter up there which could gather moss and eventually block and overflow.
Another concern is the available head height for you'd have to work around the eaves projection if you needed more.
The benefit would be having a contemporary solution that didn't rely on the party wall for main support, only lateral support and partial weathering.

FWIW

ONQ.

Victor

onq wrote: »

exemoted

I've never come across that word before. Google tells me its "exempted". Its interesting how one letter can change the structure of a word - I read it as "ex-e-moted".:D

onq wrote: »

As I've had pointd out in another forum, building an exemoted development along a party boundary is potentially fraught with pitfalls legally. These are the same pitfalls arise when you build along it by consent andwith permission. An application for permission, or exempted development, must lie within the curtilage of a dwelling. Building along a boundary means half the wall - and half the foundation, as builderfromhell has pointed out - lie in another title.

Neighbour aside, I don't think anyone is going to get over-excited about building up the boundary wall, assuming its done right and doesn't imperil the neighbour, e.g. building a 5-storey building on the boundary line and the gable wall drains onto the neighbours roof, eaves and the like are another matter.

onq

Victor wrote: »

I've never come across that word before. Google tells me its "exempted". Its interesting how one letter can change the structure of a word - I read it as "ex-e-moted".:D

Great.
That makes it official.
Spell-lamed by a legal eagle

Neighbour aside, I don't think anyone is going to get over-excited about building up the boundary wall, assuming its done right and doesn't imperil the neighbour, e.g. building a 5-storey building on the boundary line and the gable wall drains onto the neighbours roof, eaves and the like are another matter.

Nope, that's my experience to date too, but its something a diligent solicitor or barrister might make a career out of in front of a court defending a "little man"...

(sound of devils scribbling on paper, taking notes in the distance...)

ONQ.

Victor

onq wrote: »

legal eagle

Hey! Less with the insults. :pac: I'm legally aware, not legally trained.

onq

Victor wrote: »

Hey! Less with the insults. :pac: I'm legally aware, not legally trained.

(gigglesnort!)

Well, you're on the ball, that counts for a lot more than letters after your name on a day to day basis.



ONQ.