Is this build allowed?

stedeb

Hi Guys .
Sorry if this is the wrong forum . I'm looking for info on a neighbours build .
This is the neighbour at the back of my rear garden . His garden spans between mine and my next door neighbour.
Anyway I know there is no planning permission for the build and I know they can build up to a certain size without .
This new neighbour at the rear start building at the end of his garden not on the boundary wall but it spans the full width of the garden bar about 1 foot either side. His house has a large side entrance for a 3 bed semi in Dublin He is building the blocks on the flat but he has built about 8foot above the height of my back wall.
What is the allowance that they can build a shed or whatever he is building.
Cheers
S

Gumbo

4m height of pitched roof.
4m height of flat roof.

Total internal area not more than 25 Sq. M.

stedeb

Hi kceire
I have added a photo of his works.
It looks like he is doing a flat roof on it . So just wondering if could have to pull it down. Also going by his foundations it seems as if he is doing extension on to house also.
Is he supposed to keep a back garden?
Thanks
S

Johnnyhpipe

Is his ground level higher than yours?

He can build up to 40m sq without planning but must keep 25m sq garden space in order to be exempt.

That thing is a monstrosity though! On the plus side it does appear to give you more privacy...

stedeb

Thanks Johnny
Yes his garden is prob up a foot higher than ours .
I agree with the privacy he prob just doesn't want to see me as a beeched whale when the summer comes .
It's more if I was to go and sell in the future does this huge shed put a bit of devalue on my house?

As you say it looks like a monster and I'm sure if he builds a house extension as well going by his foundations will mean no garden space.
Is the 40 Sq meter in total if he builds this shed and an extension .

He is only in about 6 months and is not very approachable
.
Look he's doing it on his own land and not improaching on us we have that bit of privacy which is always good but would it devalue my house?
Thanks
Ste

DOCARCH

kceire wrote: »

4m height of pitched roof.
4m height of flat roof.

Total internal area not more than 25 Sq. M.

I think it's max. 3m for flat roofed shed?

DOCARCH

stedeb wrote: »

Is the 40 Sq meter in total if he builds this shed and an extension .

As an exempt development, you can build 40 m.sq. extension, and, 25 m.sq. shed, as long as there is 25 m.sq. open space/garden left (and subject to other criteria).

If you are genuinely worried about what he is up to, you can contact the enforcement section of your local authority and they will send somebody out to check if all is above board.

stedeb

Thanks Dochara
I read 3m for flat roof and 4m for pitch I think he is prob ok for internal size at 40 sqm sure most houses are 48 sqm downstairs. So its a big oil shed you can build .
It's more the size of the thing but again as he is higher than us anyway it just looks like a monster.
Anyone amy comments on the devalue of my house. Then again if he is in the paramaters of allowance then there I s not a lot we can do .
Cheers
Ste

DOCARCH

For a shed/structure detached/separate from the house, max. area is 25 m.sq.

Gumbo

DOCARCH wrote: »

I think it's max. 3m for flat roofed shed?

I was working off the assumption it was a garden shed but the OP edited his post after mine. I see what the words didn't explain now

What Council area are you in OP?

galljga1

On the devaluation point: I would not buy your house if I had to look out at that thing. I assume there are a number of others who would have similar views. Quite simply, removing us from the prospective buyers pool devalues your house. By how much? That's anyone's guess. I'd be planting a medium size tree in the corner and see what sort of hedge your neighbour might consider.

Squall Leonhart

Wow that thing looks awful.

As galljga1 said, I wouldn't buy your house if I had to look at that thing out the back. It probably won't reduce the value of your house monetarily as such, just will reduce the number of buyers willing to move in.

stedeb

Thanks lads yes it is unsightly due to the height of it .
I'm sure the height is more than 3 mts high this is more my issue rather than him putting a large structure on all his garden space . I just hope he doesn't use it as a residence as he did ground works for sewage .

Kceire I'm in fingal area

sydthebeat

by the time a roof is put on that it will be over 3.0 high

unless we're looking at a rear and side parapet

Calahonda52

Just eyeballin the picture the following occurs to me:

it looks like its 18 blocks long, so at 440 a block is 7.92 or say 8 meters wide.

If side is about 3 meters wide, or 7 blocks then it is inside the 25 rule which in some LA's is done on gross, outside dimensions

Height wise from the op garden it looks like 16 high at 225 which is 3.6 m high and as op says the other garden is higher then might only be 2.6 inside so could be an A roof being planned.

On the height issue, I was in a similar position many years ago as the LA took the view that the exemption height is from the lower garden..

Re enforcement, you run the risk of being identified as the complainant.
and,
as Fingal told me, :" why bother, he didn't build in your front room, did he:)

It might be a shed for industrial use which is verboten in a res estate.

Calahonda52

sydthebeat wrote: »

by the time a roof is put on that it will be over 3.0 high

unless we're looking at a rear and side parapet

Yep, the block on edge is curious

Adbrowne

stedeb wrote: »

Hi Guys .
Sorry if this is the wrong forum . I'm looking for info on a neighbours build .
This is the neighbour at the back of my rear garden . His garden spans between mine and my next door neighbour.
Anyway I know there is no planning permission for the build and I know they can build up to a certain size without .
This new neighbour at the rear start building at the end of his garden not on the boundary wall but it spans the full width of the garden bar about 1 foot either side. His house has a large side entrance for a 3 bed semi in Dublin He is building the blocks on the flat but he has built about 8foot above the height of my back wall.
What is the allowance that they can build a shed or whatever he is building.
Cheers
S

My sis had similar issue and she went to her local TD/councillor and the build had to be altered so not to block her sunlight. Maybe you should visit your local TD/councillor. With a rerun of the election a possibility you might get a fair bit of help there

DOCARCH

If that garden is approx. 1ft higher than the OPs, the top of the block work, at the moment, by my reckoning, is approx. 2.8m over their ground level.

loyatemu

Have you spoken to them? Being your rear neighbour I'd guess you don't know them very well or at all, so I wouldn't be too worried about falling out with them. The fact that they've started work on something so imposing without even popping round to give you a heads up doesn't reflect well on them anyway.

At the very least they should explain to you what they're planning, and what the finish will be like on your side - you should get them to stand in your garden and look at it too.

As others have said, you should also contact the local planning office - I find it hard to believe that's not in breach in some way. Your neighbour on the right is presumably unhappy too. I'd be concerned about the extra weight of the building on your boundary wall too - the height difference looks a lot more than a foot, your wall is holding the ground up on the other side.

On the positive side, good place to put a basketball hoop?

stedeb

Hi guys
Thanks for replies If ya see the photo you can count 16 blocks on their flat but this is above my garden wall height.
I looked this morning and counted from the damp membrane 27 blocks up to the top . I counted blocks on the side as 2 flat . so I'm thinking this is about 5 mtrs high
27 blocks X 4 inch +1 inch for cement so 27 X 5 inch divide by 2.5cm = 5.4 am I wrong on this?

mrcheez

The added privacy would be a major plus in my book and I would prefer to buy your house over another.

Why not plant some hedging at the back to cover the wall and eventually obstruct the view of the new build?

colm_mcm

I can't see much of an issue with this. Much rather that than looking at a house back-to-back with mine like what was there before.

Squall Leonhart

stedeb wrote: »

Hi guys
Thanks for replies If ya see the photo you can count 16 blocks on their flat but this is above my garden wall height.
I looked this morning and counted from the damp membrane 27 blocks up to the top . I counted blocks on the side as 2 flat . so I'm thinking this is about 5 mtrs high
27 blocks X 4 inch +1 inch for cement so 27 X 5 inch divide by 2.5cm = 5.4 am I wrong on this?

Well from what I can count, you have 12 blocks on flat and 1 block on it's side above your wall.

A block on flat is 100mm high, add in 10mm per mortar joint. A standard block is 215mm high, so..

(12*110) + 215 = ~1535mm above your wall.

Your wall is 7 blocks high, exclude 1 as you say the ground on the other side is higher than yours by approx 300mm.

(6*215) + (5*10) (your mortar joints) = ~1340mm

Total height of wall is approx 2875mm, which is under the 3 metre limit.
Your 5 metre calculation is way off.

stedeb

Hi squall prob I'm all over the place with calculations and he is in tolerance with the allowances it's just unsightly .
Privicy I am all for so partly ok with it .
It does only span across part of my rear wall but the neighbour on the right an unhappy 77yo woman on her own it spans virtually the full width of her back wall.
Again as other poster has said if it is going to he used as an industrial unit in a housing estate also is there any reason why it is built on the flat vs on the edges? Is it just a preferable or an other motive? I presume sewage works to a shed is a normal thing?

Squall Leonhart

stedeb wrote: »

is there any reason why it is built on the flat vs on the edges? Is it just a preferable or an other motive?

Personally if I was building a shed, I would go with block on flat rather than on the edges. Typically only walls that aren't taking any load are built with blocks on their edge, e.g., walls between properties etc.

Don't forget the average house is built with double walls held together with wall ties. A wall built on the flat would offer far superior structural support to a roof.

stedeb

Thanks squall I agree on the flat is better support structure indeed . I'll have to wait and see if he does a proper finish on it do it won't look so bad

loyatemu

stedeb wrote: »

I'll have to wait and see if he does a proper finish on it do it won't look so bad

you're really going to wait until he's finished and then decide what to do? At the very least you should walk around and talk to them about it, worst that can happen is they tell you to get lost.

stedeb

Look if he is in the allowance there is nothing I can do even though it looks huge and with no planning permission there are no ways to see the plans .
The neighbour asked 2 times about it and was told that she was harassing him so not approachable at all.
I'll try get a height measurement and see what the LA think

loyatemu

guy sounds like a jerk - I'd call the LA anyway and get them to come an have a look.

Calahonda52

Adbrowne wrote: »

My sis had similar issue and she went to her local TD/councillor and the build had to be altered so not to block her sunlight. Maybe you should visit your local TD/councillor. With a rerun of the election a possibility you might get a fair bit of help there

There is no right to light so I suspect he told your sis it was altered for that reason but there was some other one, typical parish pump stuff

stedeb wrote: »

Hi guys
Thanks for replies If ya see the photo you can count 16 blocks on their flat but this is above my garden wall height.
I looked this morning and counted from the damp membrane 27 blocks up to the top . I counted blocks on the side as 2 flat . so I'm thinking this is about 5 mtrs high
27 blocks X 4 inch +1 inch for cement so 27 X 5 inch divide by 2.5cm = 5.4 am I wrong on this?

As stated by others I think this math is over cooked

loyatemu wrote: »

guy sounds like a jerk - I'd call the LA anyway and get them to come an have a look.

As I stated earlier, especially with FCC, you need to proceed with care if the neighbour is an obnoxious b****r.

I know of a case where a neighbour wrote in as required and FCC sent a copy of the complaint to the guy causing the problem: when it was queried, FCC said sorry, new staff.....
The complainant has had graffiti sprayed on her car and walls, having lived her for 25 years with no problem so join the dots...

DOCARCH

Calahonda52 wrote: »

There is no right to sunlight...

FYP

stedeb

Thanks guys firstly yes my maths is a load of crap haha.
I measured my own wall 7 blocks 1.6 mtrs and his height above my wall is 7 blocks so I'd say he is in the 3 meter ish height the fact that he uses up all his garden in building works does not bother me unless he slaps 1000 Syrians in it(obvious joke for sensitive boardsies) it's more it looks huge but I have to take on mind his garden is higher anyway.
Plus side I can be a beeched whale in private now haha. When it's finished and has a proper finish it will take the horrid look off it.
noted that doing the LA Route and a neighbour finding out could cause trouble should be avoided but if the build guy thinks he can do what he wants when it affects others if he is doing an illegal height build nobody should feel like they can't do anything about it
Cheers for all the replies guys
Ste

chippers

Unauthorised development like this should be reported. No consideration for their neighbours.

loyatemu

stedeb wrote: »

When it's finished and has a proper finish it will take the horrid look off it.

but you don't know what the finish will be - he might just leave it as bare block (on your side at least, as he never has to look at that side).

stedeb

loyatemu wrote: »

but you don't know what the finish will be - he might just leave it as bare block (on your side at least, as he never has to look at that side).

That's very true I just assume and that gets nowhere as we all know

Calahonda52

Now that Kobe Bryant has retired, he might come and shoot some baskets with you if you had a nice wall for a backboard

sydthebeat

loyatemu wrote: »

but you don't know what the finish will be - he might just leave it as bare block (on your side at least, as he never has to look at that side).

as it is to the side of the dwelling it must match the external finishes of the dwelling, or it isnt possible to claim planning exemption

loyatemu

sydthebeat wrote: »

as it is to the side of the dwelling it must match the external finishes of the dwelling, or it isnt possible to claim planning exemption

it's clearly to the rear.

sydthebeat

loyatemu wrote: »

it's clearly to the rear.

erm no.

look at the photo in the first post, and ask yourself if you stood at the front of the dwelling could you see the structure. The structure clearly extends beyond the side of the house by probably about 3.0 meters.

from a planning point of view "to the rear" means completely to the rear and not extending beyond the side, even if it is "behind" the dwelling

loyatemu

sydthebeat wrote: »

erm no.

look at the photo in the first post, and ask yourself if you stood at the front of the dwelling could you see the structure. The structure clearly extends beyond the side of the house by probably about 3.0 meters.

from a planning point of view "to the rear" means completely to the rear and not extending beyond the side, even if it is "behind" the dwelling

I don't know the full regulations there, but regardless, it's at the bottom of the back garden - I doubt the planners would force them to use the same finish on a building that is so far behind the main house, but who knows.

I still think the OP has nothing much to lose by getting the planners involved now; other than falling out with someone who's not really a neighbour, and who by their actions appears to be a jerk anyway.

sydthebeat

loyatemu wrote: »

I don't know the full regulations there, but regardless, it's at the bottom of the back garden - I doubt the planners would force them to use the same finish on a building that is so far behind the main house, but who knows.
.

its irregardless of what the planners would "force" them to do.

In order to claim exemption the structure should have the same external finishes as the house

4. The external finishes of any garage or
other structure constructed, erected or
placed to the side of a house, and the roof
covering where any such structure has a
tiled or slated roof, shall conform with
those of the house.

Calahonda52

loyatemu wrote: »

I don't know the full regulations....

If not: then you should have stopped right there.

loyatemu wrote: »

I still think the OP has nothing much to lose

The poster has plenty to lose as I have already written about here.
Its all very well for you, and you don't even live in, and clearly have no directly relevant experience of dealing with, the LA in question here, to suggest courses of action when you wont have any responsibility for any adverse consequences.

It is irresponsible.

loyatemu

Calahonda52 wrote: »

If not: then you should have stopped right there.



The poster has plenty to lose as I have already written about here.
Its all very well for you, and you don't even live in, and clearly have no directly relevant experience of dealing with, the LA in question here, to suggest courses of action when you wont have any responsibility for any adverse consequences.

It is irresponsible.

Get off the high horse - it's up to the OP, he came here for advice, he doesn't have to take it.

What exactly can the LA do to him (the OP) that would cause him adverse consequences? They come, they take a look, they either say "it's exempt, live with it" or they go and talk to the neighbour if they're not happy that's it's within the regs. From the sounds of things the OP is happy to live with it anyway, I wouldn't be but it's up to him.

BryanF

loyatemu wrote: »

Get off the high horse - it's up to the OP, he came here for advice, he doesn't have to take it.

.

leave out the attitude. Thank you. No need to lash out when you've been corrected

PMBC

Re previous posts -
There is a right to light - referred to as 'The Right to Ancient Light' but no right to a view i.e. you cant stop someone from building across the road from you just because that would spoil your view. Right to light is a difficult topic and involves scientific assessment of light available using sky protractors (in the old days - now can be done using software) prior to other development. Must prove it will be/has been reduced to below a reasonable level - whatever that is!
Connection to drainage/sewerage for a 'shed' might just be for purposes of including toilet and washhand basin. Have you checked if there has been a planning application and a permission granted even for the previous owner which might still be 'live'? If he is building close to the rear boundary it is reasonable to assume he will not plant to plaster the outside.

BryanF

PMBC wrote: »

Re previous posts -
There is a right to light - referred to as 'The Right to Ancient Light' but no right to a view i.e. you cant stop someone from building across the road from you just because that would spoil your view. Right to light is a difficult topic and involves scientific assessment of light available using sky protractors (in the old days - now can be done using software) prior to other development. Must prove it will be/has been reduced to below a reasonable level - whatever that is!
Connection to drainage/sewerage for a 'shed' might just be for purposes of including toilet and washhand basin. Have you checked if there has been a planning application and a permission granted even for the previous owner which might still be 'live'? If he is building close to the rear boundary it is reasonable to assume he will not plant to plaster the outside.

Can you offer a link to this 'right' thanks

PMBC

BryanF wrote: »

Can you offer a link to this 'right' thanks

Don't have a link.
As far as I know its in the legal texts. Also have a text book, buried somewhere, on that topic and with that title. Consulting Engineer told me twenty years ago of its existence aqnd at least one application. Will check with any legal friends I can find.

PMBC

BryanF wrote: »

Can you offer a link to this 'right' thanks

OK. Case Law UK, 2010, High Court, Chancery Division, Leeds District before Justice Langan, HKRUK V HEANEY sets out details.

BTW I didn't say there was a right to light issue in this case and a quick glance at the photo indicates there isn't. Just when I saw the statement on the thread I knew it was incorrect.

sydthebeat

theres a good explanation here

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gazette/Gazette%202014/Jan-Feb2014.pdf

page 29

PMBC

sydthebeat wrote: »

theres a good explanation here

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gazette/Gazette%202014/Jan-Feb2014.pdf

page 29

Thanks sydthebeat. Very concise article, hadn't seen it before. Notice it references same case that I found. What worried me is that someone could make such a statement -'there is no right to light' - out of ignorance. Better to stay 'mum'.

stedeb

PMBC wrote: »

Re previous posts -
There is a right to light - referred to as 'The Right to Ancient Light' but no right to a view i.e. you cant stop someone from building across the road from you just because that would spoil your view. Right to light is a difficult topic and involves scientific assessment of light available using sky protractors (in the old days - now can be done using software) prior to other development. Must prove it will be/has been reduced to below a reasonable level - whatever that is!
Connection to drainage/sewerage for a 'shed' might just be for purposes of including toilet and washhand basin. Have you checked if there has been a planning application and a permission granted even for the previous owner which might still be 'live'? If he is building close to the rear boundary it is reasonable to assume he will not plant to plaster the outside.

Hi pmbc
I have checked and Def no planning permission in place and neither from before. The house was vacant for 2 year beforehand so I know that couple did not have plans to build . The builder has left about 1 foot space all around the perimeter so I only hope he does a pebbled dash finish at the back .
I am all for the privacy which I see as a plus but the neighbour next door just looks out her back garden and sees this building span the full width of her garden where as it's only 8 foot of mine . I'll have to send in a form to the LA just in case he has to make the finish like the house . Or take off a block or 2 sure if he is within regs then he should have no problem at all
Thanks
Ste