Neighbour wants shed removed

clfy39tzve8njq

Ok I don't want to be too specific on this as too many details could identify me.
In a nutshell I've inherited a semi detached house in a housing estate.
There's a fairly large shed built in the garden. Two of the shed walls are the walls dividing the house from next door raised by four blocks. The shed is built around 25 years I reckon and without planning permission.
Thing is now the next door neighbour isn't happy with it and wants it taken down.
I suppose my question is will I have to have it removed.

eoinzy2000

No, if it's up 7 years without objection, then enforcement proceedings cannot be issued. If it does not qualify under the planning exemption clauses, then you may still require planning. But if I were you, I would do nothing and let the neighbour lead the charge. If it comes to it, and civil case is taken against you by the neighbour, you could engage an agent to demonstrate that the garage qualifies under exemption rules and obtain letter from planning authority confirming this, or you could apply for planning and drag the application out for years by reapplying, if it is refused. But they can't enforce anything if you can prove it's up more than 7 years.
Now, if it is built on or within neighbours curtilage, then other legal issues can be involved, but planning authority cannot issue enforcement proceedings (if it's up more than 7 years). Go to statute book website and look at planning and development acts and the relevant clauses as well as the Regulations. (Exemption is 40m2 limit on garage, as well as visibility from public roads etc.)

clfy39tzve8njq

Thanks for the swift reply. That's a relief, I thought I had a problem because it uses the boundary wall.

eoinzy2000

Alaya Prehistoric Muck wrote: »

Thanks for the swift reply. That's a relief, I thought I had a problem because it uses the boundary wall.

Did the neighbour own the house they are in when the garage was built? Did they voice objections then?

clfy39tzve8njq

eoinzy2000 wrote:

Did the neighbour own the house they are in when the garage was built? Did they voice objections then?

Yes they're the same neighbours. There mustn't have objected at the time as I'm assuming they had to agree to the raising of the wall.
There was a bit of a falling out at some stage so that may have prompted the objection.

eoinzy2000

Alaya Prehistoric Muck wrote: »

Yes they're the same neighbours. There mustn't have objected at the time as I'm assuming they had to agree to the raising of the wall.
There was a bit of a falling out at some stage so that may have prompted the objection.

Just smile, be nice and tell them you're looking into it, everytime they ask.

Gumbo

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

No, if it's up 7 years without objection, then enforcement proceedings cannot be issued. If it does not qualify under the planning exemption clauses, then you may still require planning. But if I were you, I would do nothing and let the neighbour lead the charge. If it comes to it, and civil case is taken against you by the neighbour, you could engage an agent to demonstrate that the garage qualifies under exemption rules and obtain letter from planning authority confirming this, or you could apply for planning and drag the application out for years by reapplying, if it is refused. But they can't enforce anything if you can prove it's up more than 7 years.
Now, if it is built on or within neighbours curtilage, then other legal issues can be involved, but planning authority cannot issue enforcement proceedings (if it's up more than 7 years). Go to statute book website and look at planning and development acts and the relevant clauses as well as the Regulations. (Exemption is 40m2 limit on garage, as well as visibility from public roads etc.)

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

Just smile, be nice and tell them you're looking into it, everytime they ask.

OP, be careful taking legal advice from the internet.
This 7 year rule only related to planning enforcement issues and doesn’t extend to civil boundary disputes. There is no exemption or time limit in these.

If the adjoining land owner, who also owns this wall takes a civil case against you, he could claim ignorance and state he was at aware of the trespass until it was pointed it to him.

My advice would be to engage with them and ask what the reasons for removal are after all this time and see if a compromise can be achieved.

For starters :
There’s no mention of 40 Sq. M in shed exemptions or road visibility. They have nothing for to do with garden sheds. She’s exemption is 25 Sq. M with max height restrictions depending on roof type. You also have private open space requirements that much be adhered too.

eoinzy2000

kceire wrote: »

OP, be careful taking legal advice from the internet.
This 7 year rule only related to planning enforcement issues and doesn’t extend to civil boundary disputes. There is no exemption or time limit in these.

If the adjoining land owner, who also owns this wall takes a civil case against you, he could claim ignorance and state he was at aware of the trespass until it was pointed it to him.

My advice would be to engage with them and ask what the reasons for removal are after all this time and see if a compromise can be achieved.

For starters :
There’s no mention of 40Sq. M in shed exemptions or road visibility. They have nothing for to do with garden sheds. She’s exemption is 25 Sq. M with max height restrictions depending on roof type. You also have private open space requirements that much be adhered too.

25m2 for garages. 40 for house extension?
Engage if you want but if there's bad feeling as you've stated then you could be walking into trouble. See what they do.

clfy39tzve8njq

Thanks again for the responses.
Don't worry I'm not seeking or taking legal advice. I'm only picking the brains of those who know more about those matters than me.
Is a civil case the only way he could force me to take it down. I ask because I can't see him going down that route.
Where as if it was a case of him complaining to the local council and they could tell me remove it I could see that happening.

eoinzy2000

Alaya Prehistoric Muck wrote: »

Thanks again for the responses.
Don't worry I'm not seeking or taking legal advice. I'm only picking the brains of those who know more about those matters than me.
Is a civil case the only way he could force me to take it down. I ask because I can't see him going down that route.
Where as if it was a case of him complaining to the local council and they could tell me remove it I could see that happening.

Can't enforce. Might want you to apply for planning for retention which they could refuse. I would be completely reluctant to do anything unless your hand is forced. Sit back until you have to, if you have to do anything, you can drag it out for many years. They may just be happy costing you some money for applications etc.

PMBC

Apart from the legal aspects - planning, civil actions - think of future relations with these neighbours. Since you have just bought in you probably don't know how agreeable or disagreeable they are (to you). Good neighbours are worth a lot i.e. someone who isn't 'living in your ear' but who is around when you or family need help. Such people help wife when car wont start and husband is elsewhere, look after pets during emergencies and holidays, take in post over holidays etc. I don't mean you should 'roll over' but your action should be considerate, at least a first. If they are the worst neighbor on the road, you can change your attitude later. I lived with both types.
For your consideration.

OP, I live in a house estate, and some sheds that were built around here (including the one in my own back garden) are a disaster and should never have been built in the first place. We were fortunate that out boundary wall touched 2 neighbours that just didn't care.

However, the shed is as ugly as can be. It's there about 10 years now, and it's only in the last 2 or so years that I've addressed it a bit b throwing some paint on it, and cleaning it up a bit. Before that it was never touched. Looking around, I see many ugly 'tresspassing' sheds around that, to be honest, I'd be furious if they were built on my wall by a neighbour.


So with that said, might it be worth investigating if the neighbour just wants the shed down because it's an eyesore? If it's a battered old yoke, perhaps a couple of hundred euro to stick some paint, new gutters etc. on it might be money well spend and may satisfy ye both?

(of course, the shed could be immaculate and well kept, so there's a lot of presumption in my post).

I wouldn't be in a hurry to knock the shed though, unless the neighbour had a legitimate reason. A block-built shed will cost a fortune in the price of skip hire alone.

Gumbo

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

25m2 for garages. 40 for house extension?
Engage if you want but if there's bad feeling as you've stated then you could be walking into trouble. See what they do.

Yes that’s correct but your original post states it’s 40 Sq. M that’s exempt when it’s only 25 that is exempt.
The OP has a shed, which the limit for is 25 Sq. M, not 40.

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

Can't enforce. Might want you to apply for planning for retention which they could refuse. I would be completely reluctant to do anything unless your hand is forced. Sit back until you have to, if you have to do anything, you can drag it out for many years. They may just be happy costing you some money for applications etc.

Again, be careful mixing planning and civil.
It doesn’t matter if the OP has planning or not here as planning cannot gibe right of way to build on shared structures without civil agreement, so yes, the neighbor can take steps to enforce its removal.

I don’t understand the logic of years and applications in your posts. You get one application and one right to appeal to ABP, you can’t just lodge planning apps at will.

clfy39tzve8njq

kceire wrote:

Again, be careful mixing planning and civil. It doesn’t matter if the OP has planning or not here as planning cannot gibe right of way to build on shared structures without civil agreement, so yes, the neighbor can take steps to enforce its removal.

I'm assuming that when the wall was built he was in agreement. Can he now change his mind and say he doesn't want it there anymore ?

Gumbo

Alaya Prehistoric Muck wrote: »

I'm assuming that when the wall was built he was in agreement. Can he now change his mind and say he doesn't want it there anymore ?

This is why I insist on signed boundary wall agreements prior to construction but he could argue that he wasn’t aware until it was pointed out to him.

Not sure how far it could go legally though.

clfy39tzve8njq

kceire wrote:

Not sure how far it could go legally though.

Ok thanks. As I said I don't see him taking me to court over it, but if it was a case of only reporting it to the council and they taking it up from there, I could see that.

Gumbo

Alaya Prehistoric Muck wrote: »

Ok thanks. As I said I don't see him taking me to court over it, but if it was a case of only reporting it to the council and they taking it up from there, I could see that.

And don’t forget, the council will walk away if it’s within the exemption limits and/or it is demonstrated that the structure is there over 7 years. That clears the planning issues.

The civil issues could be more intense if the neighbor decides to go down the legal route. Hopefully he doesn’t.

Teyla Emmagan

Why don't you just take down the shed?

clfy39tzve8njq

Teyla Emmagan wrote:

Why don't you just take down the shed?

Because I'd rather not

Angry bird

Talk to the neighbours, don't string them along. Why now, what was the problem before etc? Removing garage is not an option unless you want it or unless it's straight forward to move it off the common boundary. Suggest that neighbour will have to stump up half of costs to replace boundary if this is going to happen. Basically try and get on good terms whilst letting them know that you're not a pushover. Be prepared for the worst.

eoinzy2000

kceire wrote: »

Yes that’s correct but your original post states it’s 40 Sq. M that’s exempt when it’s only 25 that is exempt.
The OP has a shed, which the limit for is 25 Sq. M, not 40.





Again, be careful mixing planning and civil.
It doesn’t matter if the OP has planning or not here as planning cannot gibe right of way to build on shared structures without civil agreement, so yes, the neighbor can take steps to enforce its removal.

I don’t understand the logic of years and applications in your posts. You get one application and one right to appeal to ABP, you can’t just lodge planning apps at will.

Of course, my original post referred to the difference between planning and civil from the start. There was never a question of this and was firmly set out in my original post.
A planning refusal can be as good as an FI in identifying matters arising. I do it all the time successfully. If a planning is refused, you don't have to appeal. You can re-lodge a subsequent planning application dealing with any matters you want. If that is refused, you can relodge with alternative arguments. You can go on doing this forever. I probably wasnt clear on this, but I was suggesting the use of this planning process as a means of pushing the matter down the road.
You are wrong in stating that you have one opportunity to lodge an application. You can lodge as many applications as you want.

Gumbo

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

Of course, my original post referred to the difference between planning and civil from the start. There was never a question of this and was firmly set out in my original post.
A planning refusal can be as good as an FI in identifying matters arising. I do it all the time successfully. If a planning is refused, you don't have to appeal. You can re-lodge a subsequent planning application dealing with any matters you want. If that is refused, you can relodge with alternative arguments. You can go on doing this forever. I probably wasnt clear on this, but I was suggesting the use of this planning process as a means of pushing the matter down the road.
You are wrong in stating that you have one opportunity to lodge an application. You can lodge as many applications as you want.

And in the mean time the neighbor can lodge a civil case against the OP and it wouldn’t make a difference as to how many Planning applications have or will be made. The planning process cannot and does not sort out civil issues and boundary disputes.

I was disputing your numbers (40Sq. M / 25 Sq. M) that you stated were exempt and I was disputing that you cannot keep lodging Planning applications to delay the process. It won’t work.

Your original posts stated no, it cannot be moved because of the 7 year rule. This is incorrect due to civil legal proceedings. You then said that even if the neighbor started civil proceedings against the OP, that he could engage an agent to confirm that it is exempt, this means nothing. The exemption limits within the P&D Act specifically state that the structure needs to be within the curtilidge of the site, the OP’s site, is trespassing or overhanging the boundary in this instance ‘may’ catch him out. Just because it may be exempt, doesn’t mean it’s legal due to land ownership issues.

eoinzy2000

kceire wrote: »

And in the mean time the neighbor can lodge a civil case against the OP and it wouldn’t make a difference as to how many Planning applications have or will be made. The planning process cannot and does not sort out civil issues and boundary disputes.

I was disputing your numbers (40Sq. M / 25 Sq. M) that you stated were exempt and I was disputing that you cannot keep lodging Planning applications to delay the process. It won’t work.

Your original posts stated no, it cannot be moved because of the 7 year rule. This is incorrect due to civil legal proceedings. You then said that even if the neighbor started civil proceedings against the OP, that he could engage an agent to confirm that it is exempt, this means nothing. The exemption limits within the P&D Act specifically state that the structure needs to be within the curtilidge of the site, the OP’s site, is trespassing or overhanging the boundary in this instance ‘may’ catch him out. Just because it may be exempt, doesn’t mean it’s legal due to land ownership issues.

You seem to be misquoting me, kceire, I never once stated that it cannot be moved because of the 7 year rule. I suggest you go back and re-read my post. I dont appreciate this sabre rattling and especially not the misquoting.

Gumbo

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

You seem to be misquoting me, kceire, I never once stated that it cannot be moved because of the 7 year rule. I suggest you go back and re-read my post. I dont appreciate this sabre rattling and especially not the misquoting.

I've never once misquoted you. Please also re-read my posts.

The OP specifically asked in his first post, if the structure will have to be removed. You said :

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

No, if it's up 7 years without objection, then enforcement proceedings cannot be issued. If it does not qualify under the planning exemption clauses, then you may still require planning. But if I were you, I would do nothing and let the neighbour lead the charge. If it comes to it, and civil case is taken against you by the neighbour, you could engage an agent to demonstrate that the garage qualifies under exemption rules and obtain letter from planning authority confirming this, or you could apply for planning and drag the application out for years by reapplying, if it is refused. But they can't enforce anything if you can prove it's up more than 7 years.

Now, if it is built on or within neighbours curtilage, then other legal issues can be involved, but planning authority cannot issue enforcement proceedings (if it's up more than 7 years). Go to statute book website and look at planning and development acts and the relevant clauses as well as the Regulations. (Exemption is 40m2 limit on garage, as well as visibility from public roads etc.)

I've bolded the items I quoted you on.
I've questioned your motive on the Planning Process the whole way through, to which I argued, that it makes no difference what the planning status is, if the neighbour takes civil proceedings against the OP.

what's the end game here? If Planning is granted for the shed, then are you saying that's the end of it and the OP wont have to remove it?

eoinzy2000

"Your original posts stated no, it cannot be moved because of the 7 year rule."
My original post never stated that, it said that enforcement proceedings could not be issued. A clear misquote.
Also, if you look at the post again, you know, the stuff in between your cherry picking, you'll see that I said, and I quote "if it is built on or within neighbours curtilage, then other legal issues can be involved".

Please read the posts. You are not reading them and cherry picking sections and then ignoring what is said.

You said: "what's the end game here? If Planning is granted for the shed, then are you saying that's the end of it and the OP wont have to remove it?"

No, thats what you seem to want me to say so that you can have an argument. Read my post, thats what I was trying to say.

Gumbo

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

"Your original posts stated no, it cannot be moved because of the 7 year rule."
My original post never stated that, it said that enforcement proceedings could not be issued. A clear misquote.
Also, if you look at the post again, you know, the stuff in between your cherry picking, you'll see that I said, and I quote "if it is built on or within neighbours curtilage, then other legal issues can be involved".

Please read the posts. You are not reading them and cherry picking sections and then ignoring what is said.

You said: "what's the end game here? If Planning is granted for the shed, then are you saying that's the end of it and the OP wont have to remove it?"

No, thats what you seem to want me to say so that you can have an argument. Read my post, thats what I was trying to say.

Ok then. Without an argument. Why go through the planning process at all if this is not a planning issue?

eoinzy2000

kceire wrote: »

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

"Your original posts stated no, it cannot be moved because of the 7 year rule."
My original post never stated that, it said that enforcement proceedings could not be issued. A clear misquote.
Also, if you look at the post again, you know, the stuff in between your cherry picking, you'll see that I said, and I quote "if it is built on or within neighbours curtilage, then other legal issues can be involved".

Please read the posts. You are not reading them and cherry picking sections and then ignoring what is said.

You said: "what's the end game here? If Planning is granted for the shed, then are you saying that's the end of it and the OP wont have to remove it?"

No, thats what you seem to want me to say so that you can have an argument. Read my post, thats what I was trying to say.

Ok then. Without an argument. Why go through the planning process at all if this is not a planning issue?

No argument necessary.
Glad we cleared that up. It was getting messy.

Gumbo

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

No argument necessary.
Glad we cleared that up. It was getting messy.

Can you clarify why the OP should go through the Planning Process though?

eoinzy2000

kceire wrote: »

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

No argument necessary.
Glad we cleared that up. It was getting messy.

Can you clarify why the OP should go through the Planning Process though?

Well, if he requires planning, then ............

Gumbo

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

Well, if he requires planning, then ............

So you have no reason?
Seriously?

Kristopherus

Alaya Prehistoric Muck wrote: »

Because I'd rather not

Is there any way you could get info from the relations who are connected to who owned the house, re any consent from the grumpy neighbour about the construction of the shed?

eoinzy2000

kceire wrote: »

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

Well, if he requires planning, then ............

So you have no reason?
Seriously?

??? Im confused, I said, if he requires planning.

eoinzy2000

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

kceire wrote: »

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

Well, if he requires planning, then ............

So you have no reason?
Seriously?

??? Im confused, I said, if he requires planning.

He should lodge a planning application, retention etc....  if it is required, same as anyone.
This is turning into a competitive one-upmanship thing is it? You win, you can have it.

Gumbo

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

He should lodge a planning application, retention etc....  if it is required, same as anyone.
This is turning into a competitive one-upmanship thing is it? You win, you can have it.

I don't need to win, but you have a habit of offering advice that cannot be followed through on.

The OP has civil/Boundary problem and your advice is to lodge planning. The planning status has no bearing on the civil/legal/boundary dispute, that's been my point from the start but you have ignored this and continued to flog the Planning Application approach.

If the neighbour decides to go through the legal system, then yes, the OP may have to remove the shed and no planning application will solve this.

Hence, my advice from the start, talk to the neighbour.

eoinzy2000

If he requires planning permission, then I advised him to lodge planning. Not to solve any legal boundary dispute, but to regularise any planning issues. A process that he could also utilise in other ways to his advantage, if required. 
You assume that its a legal boundary dispute. From where did you obtain this information? Is it an assumption?

kceire wrote: »

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

He should lodge a planning application, retention etc....  if it is required, same as anyone.
This is turning into a competitive one-upmanship thing is it? You win, you can have it.

I don't need to win, but you have a habit of offering advice that cannot be followed through on.

The OP has civil/Boundary problem and your advice is to lodge planning. The planning status has no bearing on the civil/legal/boundary dispute, that's been my point from the start but you have ignored this and continued to flog the Planning Application approach.

If the neighbour decides to go through the legal system, then yes, the OP may have to remove the shed and no planning application will solve this.

Hence, my advice from the start, talk to the neighbour.

kceire wrote: »

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

He should lodge a planning application, retention etc....  if it is required, same as anyone.
This is turning into a competitive one-upmanship thing is it? You win, you can have it.

I don't need to win, but you have a habit of offering advice that cannot be followed through on.

The OP has civil/Boundary problem and your advice is to lodge planning. The planning status has no bearing on the civil/legal/boundary dispute, that's been my point from the start but you have ignored this and continued to flog the Planning Application approach.

If the neighbour decides to go through the legal system, then yes, the OP may have to remove the shed and no planning application will solve this.

Hence, my advice from the start, talk to the neighbour.

Gumbo

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

If he requires planning permission, then I advised him to lodge planning. Not to solve any legal boundary dispute, but to regularise any planning issues. A process that he could also utilise in other ways to his advantage, if required. 
You assume that its a legal boundary dispute. From where did you obtain this information? Is it an assumption?

That's the difference, I didn't make any assumptions

From the OP, post No. 1

Alaya Prehistoric Muck wrote: »

Two of the shed walls are the walls dividing the house from next door raised by four blocks.

eoinzy2000

kceire wrote: »

eoinzy2000 wrote: »

If he requires planning permission, then I advised him to lodge planning. Not to solve any legal boundary dispute, but to regularise any planning issues. A process that he could also utilise in other ways to his advantage, if required. 
You assume that its a legal boundary dispute. From where did you obtain this information? Is it an assumption?

That's the difference, I didn't make any assumptions

From the OP, post No. 1

Alaya Prehistoric Muck wrote: »

Two of the shed walls are the walls dividing the house from next door raised by four blocks.

Funny, that doesn't mention a boundary dispute at all. Mentions a couple of walls is all. Made absolutely no reference to dispute. You assumed it was a boundary dispute. Planning permission, or lack thereof, was explicitly mentioned though. And advice sought. Funny that.

smunchkins

If the shed has been there 25 years though, doesn't that mean the OP could invoke adverse possession on any boundary/civil challenge with regards adding the the wall height?
The neighbour couldn't claim ignorance on that, as they have been looking at it for 25 years!
You'd just need maps to prove it. OP is your area urban? Easier to get mapping for that.

Gumbo

smunchkins wrote: »

If the shed has been there 25 years though, doesn't that mean the OP could invoke adverse possession on any boundary/civil challenge with regards adding the the wall height?
The neighbour couldn't claim ignorance on that, as they have been looking at it for 25 years!
You'd just need maps to prove it. OP is your area urban? Easier to get mapping for that.

This would be a better route than the planning route in my opinion too.
But best to seek legal advice first.

smunchkins

http://map.geohive.ie/
This gives you access to aerial photography from 1995, 2000 and 2005.
As the structure has been in situ for so long, the documentary evidence may help in any "discussions" with the neighbour.

db

OP, As you have inherited the house you may need to sell. If so, you may need to regularise the planning situation, whether that is by getting planning permission or a declaration of exemption if the shed meets exemption requirements. If you plan on living in the house it would be best to have a discussion with the neighbour. Is it possible the falling out was over the shed being built?

GerardKeating

kceire wrote: »

OP, be careful taking legal advice from the internet.
This 7 year rule only related to planning enforcement issues and doesn’t extend to civil boundary disputes. There is no exemption or time limit in these.

If the adjoining land owner, who also owns this wall takes a civil case against you, he could claim ignorance and state he was at aware of the trespass until it was pointed it to him.

Would/Could this not be covered by "Adverse possession", if the shed is squatting on the neighbour property for the past 25 years.

Angry bird

Interesting. I expect the OP has had all the advice they could possibly need from here. Good luck.

eoinzy2000

db wrote: »

OP, As you have inherited the house you may need to sell. If so, you may need to regularise the planning situation, whether that is by getting planning permission or a declaration of exemption if the shed meets exemption requirements. If you plan on living in the house it would be best to have a discussion with the neighbour. Is it possible the falling out was over the shed being built?

Yes, that would be the sensible approach in my opinion.