Advice sought- building house extension touching off party wall

babyraccoon

Hi there,

We have planning permission for our house extension. We're planning to start works on our house in two weeks, where we will be building an extension that will be touching a party wall.

Originally we had hoped to rebuild the party wall, but the neighbour denied permission. The engineer is redrafting plans to underpin the wall, and we will build directly next to it (touching it), retaining the original wall.

The neighbour insists we need his permission to build within a certain distance of the wall. We've been told by the architect that as we have planning permission, we don't. The neighbour is not...the best communicator. He seems befuddled, and we assume that he is getting confused and thinking about the laws governing planning exemption.

However, we'd like to ensure we're totally in the right on this one. We've an appointment with FLAC this Wednesday evening, but I'd be grateful for info from informed people here as well. We'd love to avoid getting solicitors involved, but if we're in the right we certainly won't be backing down.

Thank you!

goz83

If you've got PP, then your neighbour presumably had his chance to pass his concerns to the planning board. Maybe ask him about his concerns and have your architect/builder assure him if he needs any technical explanations. Short of that, let him eat his bitter apple by himself. Some people just cannot be pleased.

Pat Mustard

babyraccoon wrote: »

we will be building an extension that will be touching a party wall.

Is it a party wall, belonging to both parties, or is it just a boundary wall, which might be within the bounds of one or other of the properties?

You should find out the answer to this. It is important to know the location of the boundary.

The architect may be able to assist in this, by reference to the appropriate maps.

babyraccoon wrote: »

However, we'd like to ensure we're totally in the right on this one. We've an appointment with FLAC this Wednesday evening, but I'd be grateful for info from informed people here as well. We'd love to avoid getting solicitors involved, but if we're in the right we certainly won't be backing down.

The solicitor is probably going to have to look up the answer to this question, rather than risk getting it wrong. However, FLAC does not really facilitate follow-up consultations with solicitors. Therefore, I would suggest getting a private solicitor for this.

In any event, see here and here.

babyraccoon

Thanks for these replies.

@The Mustard:
I'm confused about the difference between boundary wall and party wall. The definition of 'party structure' as quoted in the second link you posted:
'"includes any such structure which is—
(i) situated entirely in or on one of the adjoining buildings or unbuilt-on lands, or
(ii) straddles the boundary line between adjoining buildings or between such buildings and
unbuilt-on lands and is either co-owned by their respective owners or subject to some division of
ownership between them.”'

Am I reading this incorrectly? It seems to purposely be lumping both 'boundary wall' and 'party wall' (as you phrased them) into one definition, to then go on to give rights to one of the building owners to carry out works:
'"(b) carrying out development which is exempted development or development for which planning
permission has been obtained or compliance with any condition attached to such permission,"'

I suppose what I'm asking is this: what different rights would be conferred if it is a boundary wall that is on his property?

Thanks again for any advice.

Pat Mustard

Sorry I'll take a look at this again when I get a chance

Peregrinus

It helps to understand that, in Irish law, a stucture like a wall is not owned separately from the land on which it stands. It's a fixture; it forms part of the land, and whowever owns the land owns the wall (and any other fixtures on the land).

Traditionally, a true "party wall" runs along (and straddles) the boundary between A's land and B's. One half of the wall stands on A's land, and one half on B's land. The wall, however, is not divided into a part owned by A and a part owned by B; instead, the entire wall is co-owned by A and B (and they share responsibility for its maintenance).

By contrast, a wall running along the boundary between A's land and B's land, but built entirely on A's land (i.e. the boundary runs not along the centre of the wall, but along the side facing B's land) is not a party wall within this understanding; it belongs entirely to A. For convenience, let's call that a "boundary wall" (though, unlike "party wall", that's not not an established legal term)

The Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, to which The Mustard links, defines a new concept; party structure. A party structure (defined in s.43 of the Act) includes a wall straddling the boundary (a true "party wall' as discussed above), a wall which is not a party wall but which nevertheless divides two plots of land (a "boundary wall" discussed above) and a wall which is set back from the boundary, but is nevertheless so close to it that it's impossible or impractical to do any work on the wall without having access to the adjacent land. So if A build a wall which stands six inches back from the boundary with B's land, that's a party structure since, realistically, it's impossible to do any work on the wall without access to B's land.

Whether the wall in your case is a true party wall or not, it does sound as though it is a "party structure". This is so even if it's a boundary wall on his property.

Under section 44, to which The Mustard links, you don't need your neighbour's permission to carry out any work of the kind listed in that section. But (a) check carefully that the work you are doing does come within the section, and (b) note that you are obliged to pay your neighbour's reasonable costs of getting professional advice about the impact of your work, and reasonable compensation for any inconvenience he suffers as a result of the work being done.

Note that if the wall is a "set back wall" say, six inches into his property, it's still a party structure and you can work on it under s.44. But what you can't do is extend your own house to touch it; a six-inch strip of land on your side of the wall belongs to him, and whatever you build on it will belong to him also.

babyraccoon

@Peregrinus: thanks for your explanation.

So, to ensure I have this correct:

1) As we have planning permission, we do not need his permission to carry out works that touch the wall as they fall under 44.1.b.

2) BUT, if the actual boundary of property between the two gardens does not go down the centre of the party structure, and the wall extends further into his garden than ours, then technically he would own whatever we build on the strip of land of equal distance that extends into our garden.

3) We are liable to pay his costs for professional advice on the impact of our building works on his property, and reasonable compensation for inconvenience.

So the sum of all this is that it would be prudent to investigate where the actual boundary between the properties is. Is this a solicitor job or is it something a lay person can do?

Pro Hoc Vice

babyraccoon wrote: »

@Peregrinus: thanks for your explanation.

So, to ensure I have this correct:

1) As we have planning permission, we do not need his permission to carry out works that touch the wall as they fall under 44.1.b.

2) BUT, if the actual boundary of property between the two gardens does not go down the centre of the party structure, and the wall extends further into his garden than ours, then technically he would own whatever we build on the strip of land of equal distance that extends into our garden.

3) We are liable to pay his costs for professional advice on the impact of our building works on his property, and reasonable compensation for inconvenience.

So the sum of all this is that it would be prudent to investigate where the actual boundary between the properties is. Is this a solicitor job or is it something a lay person can do?

Get a solicitor and an engineer it will be a lot cheaper than a possible court case.

Indricotherium

Do you not have general right of support on a party wall?

This is ringing some sort of bell for me?

babyraccoon

Thanks everyone for the advice. I think I will be making a call to a solicitor, just to be sure to be sure.

An engineer is already engaged on the project so that end of things is already covered.

Thanks again!

Bepolite

Indricotherium wrote: »

Do you not have general right of support on a party wall?

This is ringing some sort of bell for me?

You're thinking of terraced/semi-detached houses I think.

OP - I'm not sure FLAC is for this sort of thing, they are there to provide emergency cover to people that have no other option, not really to support people spending thousands on house extensions. That said if the clinic is happy to help fair enough.

Peregrinus

babyraccoon wrote: »

@Peregrinus: thanks for your explanation.

So, to ensure I have this correct:

1) As we have planning permission, we do not need his permission to carry out works that touch the wall as they fall under 44.1.b.

S. 344(1)(b) authorises you to carry out works on the wall, for the purpose of carrying out your approved development. It doesn't authorise anything else apart from the work on the wall. That's why, if he owns a strip of land on your side of the wall, it doesn't authorise you building on that land.

babyraccoon wrote: »

2) BUT, if the actual boundary of property between the two gardens does not go down the centre of the party structure, and the wall extends further into his garden than ours, then technically he would own whatever we build on the strip of land of equal distance that extends into our garden.

Correct. Plus, he could sue you for building on his land, or he could knock down what you had built on his land and then sue you for the costs of doing so. So don't make this mistake.

babyraccoon wrote: »

3) We are liable to pay his costs for professional advice on the impact of our building works on his property, and reasonable compensation for inconvenience.

Yes.

babyraccoon wrote: »

So the sum of all this is that it would be prudent to investigate where the actual boundary between the properties is. Is this a solicitor job or is it something a lay person can do?

It's something a surveyor does.