planning issue with neighbour.

loveroflight

Hi.
Need some advice. If someone applies for planning for an extension in the rear garden of a semi detached, where the outside of the new external wall is shown on the plans as in the center of the existing garden wall. Do they need the agreement of the neighbour?
If so, why would one apply for permission without such agreement or consultation? am I missing something? Looking at the plans, it looks like the garden wall would have to be demolished.

DOCARCH

loveroflight wrote: »

If someone applies for planning for an extension in the rear garden of a semi detached, where the outside of the new external wall is shown on the plans as in the center of the existing garden wall. Do they need the agreement of the neighbour?

Yes...basically!

loveroflight wrote: »

If so, why would one apply for permission without such agreement or consultation? am I missing something? Looking at the plans, it looks like the garden wall would have to be demolished.

A bit silly to plan something without the agreement of the neighbour. If they receive planning permission, this will not entitle them to build what is shown on the plans if the neighbour does not agree to the proposal...i.e. planning permission does not trump the property rights of others!

Gumbo

loveroflight wrote: »

Hi.
Need some advice. If someone applies for planning for an extension in the rear garden of a semi detached, where the outside of the new external wall is shown on the plans as in the center of the existing garden wall. Do they need the agreement of the neighbour?
If so, why would one apply for permission without such agreement or consultation? am I missing something? Looking at the plans, it looks like the garden wall would have to be demolished.

Permission from both sides of the wall required.
On my plans I always show this detail with a big note saying that the new wall is to be constructed centered on the boundary line subject to the approval of both parties.

It is in both of your interest to do this as you both get the most space possible if you both extend. With your Neighbour doing the wall first, you effectively get one wall for free if you ever want to extend.

But you must insist on the design being correct now. A proper structural wall capable of taking both sides of the extension for the future. 215mm solid block on the flat will be sufficient and will also achieve Part E (Sound) compliance for the future as opposed to hollow blocks.

sydthebeat

Permission is not required

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

Permission is not required

For what?

Gumbo

sydthebeat wrote: »

Permission is not required

DOCARCH wrote: »

For what?

Hang on, I see what Syd has replied to and I missed it too.

The OP said the OUTSIDE of the new wall is in the centre, that means the Neighbour has built entirely on their own property. (Assuming no over sailing for gutters, fascia etc)

DOCARCH

kceire wrote: »

Hang on, I see what Syd has replied to and I missed it too.

The OP said the OUTSIDE of the new wall is in the centre, that means the Neighbour has built entirely on their own property. (Assuming no over sailing for gutters, fascia etc)

If the wall is a party/shared wall, the entire wall is the property of both parties. Each party does not own half the wall!

Yes, you can build inside the wall without the permission of the other party, but, if you build on any part of the wall, you need to permission/agreement of the other party.

When I say permission, I do not mean planning permission...I mean an agreement between both parties.

Gumbo

DOCARCH wrote: »

If the wall is a party/shared wall, the entire wall is the property of both parties. Each party does not own half the wall!

Yes, you can build inside the wall without the permission of the other party, but, if you build on any part of the wall, you need to permission/agreement of the other party.

When I say permission, I do not mean planning permission...I mean an agreement between both parties.

I'm well aware of that as you know
I was just pointing out where Syd's response may have come from?

DOCARCH

kceire wrote: »

I was just pointing out where Syd's response may have come from?

Maybe Syd could elaborate on what he meant?

sydthebeat

apologies, i posted that on the fly this morning.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/27/section/44/enacted/en/html#sec44

this basically breaks down to a property owner being allowed to do work on a party structure without the permission of the other owner once certain conditions are met (see sections 2 and 3)

of course this is all on the premise that no new works overhang anyone elses property, and thats what i read from the OP

so in effect one owner does not require the permission of another owner to carry out works on a party structure (though of course its desirable)

Angry bird

Very good spot syd, no flies on you.