Boundary wall is also wall of my house

Sea point

Hi all,

One of the four walls of my house is also the boundary wall with my neighbour. Our neighbour has garden space on the other side of the wall.

Our deeds are silent on the issue of ownership of the boundary wall.

Am I right to assume that since the wall is one of the four walls of our house that the wall is entirely our property ?

If so am I entitled to build an extra storey on top of the wall as long as I get planning permission ?

Many thanks for any advice you can offer

sydthebeat

No. The wall is owned jointly by you and your neighbor.

Planning should not also give you permission on land you do not own, unless permission is given by the other land owner.

Sea point

Thanks for your answer. How do you determine that one of the four walls of my house is jointly owned by my neighbour ? Or is that simply always the case ?

sydthebeat

Sea point wrote: »

Thanks for your answer. How do you determine that one of the four walls of my house is jointly owned by my neighbour ? Or is that simply always the case ?

If it's a wall separating both your properties, it's the case.

DOCARCH

Sea point wrote: »

Thanks for your answer. How do you determine that one of the four walls of my house is jointly owned by my neighbour ? Or is that simply always the case ?

If it does not say you (wholly) own the wall in your title deeds, you would have to assume it is party/boundary wall (even though it is the side wall of your house).

Calahonda52

sydthebeat wrote: »

No. The wall is owned jointly by you and your neighbor.

Planning should not also give you permission on land you do not own, unless permission is given by the other land owner.

If this assertion is true, then is the neighbours consent required for the OP to sell?
Did neighbour give consent for OP to buy?
I just asking

The the other consideration is sect 43 to 47 of the 2009 land and conveyancing act Which deals with boundaries.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0027/sec0043.html

OP. what does the land reg map show?

sydthebeat

Calahonda52 wrote: »

If this assertion is true, then is the neighbours consent required for the OP to sell?
Did neighbour give consent for OP to buy?

No.
I wasnt referring to conveyancing procedure, just planning.

Calahonda52

sydthebeat wrote: »

No.
I wasnt referring to conveyancing procedure, just planning.

Thanks, be interested to see how it washes out.

Sea point

So what does this practically mean for my plans for adding a storey to the house ?

The consensus in this thread seems to be that the wall separating our two properties (that is also one of the walls of my house) is jointly owned by both parties.

Lets take the scenario where my neighbour does not give his permission to build on top of the wall. The wall is old and about 2 feet thick. Does that mean I own the half of the wall closest to me ? And does it then follow that I need to build on top of the 1 foot thickness of my half of the wall only ? So the profile of the new second storey would be in one foot more than the wall below it ?

Has anyone got thoughts on the solution here ?

DOCARCH

A (shared) boundary wall is mutually exclusive to both sides. Both sides own the entire wall. So one side cannot build on any part (or what they consider 'their' part/side) of a boundary wall without the consent of the other side.

gozunda

DOCARCH wrote: »

A (shared) boundary wall is mutually exclusive to both sides. Both sides own the entire wall. So one side cannot build on any part (or what they consider 'their' part/side) of a boundary wall without the consent of the other side.

Would Planning permission for development of Terrace houses be treated similarly?

Penn

Sea point wrote: »

So what does this practically mean for my plans for adding a storey to the house ?

The consensus in this thread seems to be that the wall separating our two properties (that is also one of the walls of my house) is jointly owned by both parties.

Lets take the scenario where my neighbour does not give his permission to build on top of the wall. The wall is old and about 2 feet thick. Does that mean I own the half of the wall closest to me ? And does it then follow that I need to build on top of the 1 foot thickness of my half of the wall only ? So the profile of the new second storey would be in one foot more than the wall below it ?

Has anyone got thoughts on the solution here ?

The wall might not even be capable of being built on. Even though you say it's 2ft thick, it might not be structurally capable of a two-storey extension being built on it. Besides which, even if you did build on top of it, no part of your extension (including rainwater gutters, parapet capping) should cross the centreline of the wall. This can have huge implications on design details. Even just building the outer leaf of blockwork on the existing wall effects DPC details for the new wall of your extension.

I'd say your best bet is to build an entirely new wall close to but fully inside the party wall. You lose a bit of space, but you'll save money and hardship.

HelenV

Sea point wrote: »

So what does this practically mean for my plans for adding a storey to the house ?

The consensus in this thread seems to be that the wall separating our two properties (that is also one of the walls of my house) is jointly owned by both parties.

Lets take the scenario where my neighbour does not give his permission to build on top of the wall. The wall is old and about 2 feet thick. Does that mean I own the half of the wall closest to me ? And does it then follow that I need to build on top of the 1 foot thickness of my half of the wall only ? So the profile of the new second storey would be in one foot more than the wall below it ?

Has anyone got thoughts on the solution here ?

Your house may have been built pre-planning requirements in the 1960's. It might be wise to have an engineer look at it who will check out all those issues for you. You'd never know, you may actually own the entire wall plus one or two feet on your neighbour's side.

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

A (shared) boundary wall is mutually exclusive to both sides. Both sides own the entire wall. So one side cannot build on any part (or what they consider 'their' part/side) of a boundary wall without the consent of the other side.

Has this changed since i was in college?
where one party could build to a notional boundary line half way in the boundary wall without the permission of the neighbour?

DOCARCH

gozunda wrote: »

Would Planning permission for development of Terrace houses be treated similarly?

The whole legalities of boundary walls is a civil matter (between the two owners) and not a planning matter. Planners do not get involved with boundary walls (and building on them).

If the planners get a planning application showing a proposed development built on boundary wall, it is taken at face value that the person submitting the planning application can legally build what is shown, and they make their decision (solely) with regard to planning matters/issues.

If somebody gets planning permission for a proposed development built on a boundary wall, that does not override the ownership/legalities of the boundary wall...if the adjoining owner (subsequently) does not allow the proposed development to be built on the boundary wall, so be it, just because there is planning permission showing it, gives no entitlement to actually do it!

Anybody considering applying for planning permission/building on a boundary wall should first seek the (written) agreement of the adjoining owner. It will save a lot of possible headaches down the road!

Sea point

Thanks Bad Horse for your answer.

The existing setup is that the gutters over hang the wall and are literally hanging over my neighbours garden.

It would be great if I could get their consent to build higher and still have the gutters overhanging, subject to it being structurally sound. However I don't think consent will be forthcoming.

So it sounds like a new wall built fully inside the party wall is need and that then the rain water goods and gutters would be fixed onto the newly built and be hanging over the existing party wall. Am I right that you think this would be the best/logical setup ?

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

Has this changed since i was in college?
where one party could build to a notional boundary line half way in the boundary wall without the permission of the neighbour?

Not sure that was ever the case. legally? The legal side of it is that both parties have a 50% share of the entire wall...so the entire wall is the property of both parties. Not sure that has ever changed?

Having been all the way to the four courts on a similar the matter, a boundary wall issue (on the side of right I might add!)...I have the T-shirt! Although the only winners, really, were the solicitors and barristers!!!

DOCARCH

Sea point wrote: »

So it sounds like a new wall built fully inside the party wall....

Without the agreement of your neighbour, this is the safest option to plan for (but without rainwater goods overhanging!).

Sea point

HelenV wrote: »

Your house may have been built pre-planning requirements in the 1960's. You'd never know, you may actually own the entire wall plus one or two feet on your neighbour's side.

The house was built in the 1800's so yes pre-1960's. It is possible the original 1,000 year leases signed in 1820 ! dealt with the boundary walls but both parties converted to freeholders long ago and all that exists in terms of information describing the boundary now is a line on an Ordinance survey map which means little legally about the exact position of the boundary. I assume you cannot think of any other way of finding out where the exact boundary was originally intended to be ?

DOCARCH

Sea point wrote: »

The house was built in the 1800's so yes pre-1960's. It is possible the original 1,000 year leases signed in 1820 ! dealt with the boundary walls but both parties converted to freeholders long ago and all that exists in terms of information describing the boundary now is a line on an Ordinance survey map which means little legally about the exact position of the boundary. I assume you cannot think of any other way of finding out where the exact boundary was originally intended to be ?

If it is not specified in the title deeds, the wall or fence that is 'on the ground' is the 'exact' boundary. There is always a disclaimer with OS maps that they do not define boundaries or that, simply, a line on a map is not intended to be taken as evidence of a (legal) boundary.

Penn

Sea point wrote: »

Thanks Bad Horse for your answer.

The existing setup is that the gutters over hang the wall and are literally hanging over my neighbours garden.

It would be great if I could get their consent to build higher and still have the gutters overhanging, subject to it being structurally sound. However I don't think consent will be forthcoming.

So it sounds like a new wall built fully inside the party wall is need and that then the rain water goods and gutters would be fixed onto the newly built and be hanging over the existing party wall. Am I right that you think this would be the best/logical setup ?

If your gutters are still within your property (ie. do not extend over the centreline of the existing part wall), then yes, it would probably be the best solution. Then again, a parapet wall detail would help to prevent the gutters going over the party wall and enable you to build closer to the party wall.

You should definitely engage a professional for design and structural advice though. Building close to a party wall requires good foundation and damp-proofing details. They'll be able to give better advice following a proper visual inspection of your property.

Sea point

DOCARCH wrote: »

Without the agreement of your neighbour, this is the safest option to plan for (but without rainwater goods overhanging!).

Quick clarification here since you say "without rainwater goods overhanging"

The new gutters fixed to the 2nd storey extension should not overhang my neighbours garden anymore which I understand. However the new gutters will need to overhang the existing party wall, is that alright ? or could that be problematic also ?

Penn

DOCARCH wrote: »

If it is not specified in the title deeds, the wall or fence that is 'on the ground' is the 'exact' boundary. There is always a disclaimer with OS maps that they do not define boundaries or that, simply, a line on a map is not intended to be taken as evidence of a (legal) boundary.

Exactly. The maps define property, not boundary. A line 0.5mm thick on a 1:2500 drawing covers 1.25m on the ground. Land Registry or OS maps aren't accurate enough to give exact measurements of boundaries. They all have disclaimers stating such.

The boundary is almost always taken as being the centreline of any long-term hardstandings (walls, fences, treelines etc) separating properties provided they are in the approximate location shown on the maps and agreed by both adjoining landowners.

Penn

Sea point wrote: »

Quick clarification here since you say "without rainwater goods overhanging"

The new gutters fixed to the 2nd storey extension should not overhang my neighbours garden anymore which I understand. However the new gutters will need to overhang the existing party wall, is that alright ? or could that be problematic also ?

Without the rainwater goods overhanging past the centreline of the party wall, as this would mean part of your building would be on your neighbour's property and could cause issues.

A parapet wall detail would solve this issue, though then you can run into issues with overshadowing. Again, a suitable professional would be able to come up with the proper details required to prevent such issues occurring.