45 degree rule

[Alchemist]

Hi, Im new on hear. I hope someone can help.

 

The next door neighbour`s are having an enormous conservatory built. This is L shaped and is going to be built on the border line on two sides. It is also elevated above our garden by about 500mm. Planning permission has been granted (more fool us!). Our house is an end of terraced house and theirs, a mid-terraced house in a block of 4. Now, I`m not talking about a finicky a few inches here but drawing a 45 rule out from our nearest window to their proposed conservatory, it actually more than bisects the conservatory. the 25 degree rule is also going to be broken in the vertical plane too. I have complained to the Planning Department and they said that:

 

(a) The above rules are not prescriptive and there fore may, may not be applied(?!).

(b) They rules are `relaxed` for mid-terraced houses. (Since these rules are `often` broken)

(c) the diagram I used as an example was for a two storey building and therefore the rule did not apply `so strictly`.

 

All in all they did not think that such an extension would impact sufficiently on our property.

 

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

 

 

[Faz]

If they have granted planning then the ship has sailed I would have thought unless you want to embark on a legal voyage of Judicial Review. Most JR's are brought in the name of people with no assets and no money for a reason mind....

 

Any chance of a mild amiable conversation with next door over a coffee or beer?

[Temp]

+1

 

Once planning Permission is granted its nearly impossible to get it withdrawn or amended. 

 

1 hour ago, Alchemist said:

This is L shaped and is going to be built on the border line on two sides

 

You have some rights when it comes to building on or near the property boundary but don't get too excited...

 

Nothing can overhang the boundary line without your permission. That includes things like guttering and rainwater down pipes, window sills etc. In some cases this means that the wall of the building has to be built some inches, perhaps 1ft,  on their side of the boundary. Its not uncommon for builders to (conveniently) forget this and build the wall adjacent to the boundary meaning the eaves and gutters are going to overhang when they get that high. If you think this will happen stamp on it quickly. If you leave it too late they may not be able to afford to rectify and will likely carry on relying on the fact that you can't afford court action and courts are fed up dealing with such minor matters anyway.

 

Legislation allows neighbours access to each others land for maintenance purposes but there is no similar legal right of access when doing new building. In general its is better to allow them access to build the conservatory because it makes it easier for them to make your side look good. For example it's harder to lay bricks "overhand" (eg from their side only)  and get a good finish on your side.

 

If the fence is yours they have no legal right to remove it, either permanently or temporarily to make construction easier.  

 

Amazingly the neighbours DO have a right to put their foundations partly on your land IF IT IS NECESSARY. However it is very rarely necessary. The Party Wall Act says.. a Building Owner shall have the right “… to place below the level of the land of the Adjoining Owner such projecting footings and foundations as are necessary…”

 

The Party Wall Act  gives you some rights IF their foundations are going to be within 3m of yours AND are going to be deeper than your foundations. There are other rules but this is likely to be the most important for you. However unless you live in a very old property it is unlikely that the foundations they need for a conservatory will be deeper than your house. If this were to be the case you might be able to bog them down in surveyors costs but try and resolve things amicably first.

 

Right to Light Act: The 45 degree rule is an attempt by councils to recognise people have a right to light. However the 45 degree rule is not "law" its only guidance as you found out. The law is detailed in the Right to Light Act. This would only be worth investigating if it looks like they will be virtually blocking up one of your windows. From what you say its very unlikely the impact their conservatory will have will reduce light levels enough in your rooms to amount to a breach of the Act. If it did then this could be a show stopper as it trumps Planning Permission. 

 

[saveasteading]

Photo always helpful. Along the boundary is probably the most useful.

[Ferdinand]

I'm afraid that 'more fool you' has much truth in it - I also missed one once.

 

You can also prevent them trespassing on your land - scaffolding etc, or charge rent.

 

But what could happen is that you end up with  a bodge built from only one side.

 

You need to check where things will actually be, what your rights actually are, what you are actually going to do about it, an what you are going to ask them to do or change - eg I built mine 18" in from the boundary with a high clerestory window because i wanted a bit of "lounge" back wall still accessible even though the PP was up to the boundary. Being a doormat is a bad idea, but so equally is overreaching. Don't get your redlines in the wrong place. 

 

Don't let yourself get over emotional, and have a non-involved level-headed friend give you feedback on your findings and proposed action. But you also need to move quickly.

 

NB: If it is a real shared fence, both parties need to agree before eg either removes it. 

 

Ferdinand

 

[AliG]

Sadly too late to realistically do anything about it.

 

To hopefully hep you feel better - Is there already a 6ft/2m fence between the houses. If so it is unlikely that the side wall of he conservatory will be much taller and cause much more overshadowing? Indeed this may have been taken into consideration by the planners.

 

Also what direction does the garden face? Overshadowing impacts change depending on the direction of the sun.

 

Also if you can't beat them, join them. Would you benefit from an extension out as far as they are building as they cannot complain about it overshadowing them now.

 

[Ferdinand]

I would say that in addition to overhangs, you could be raising things like "how will you clean the glass on the outside by our fence", "will you fit opaque or patterned glass", "what happens when we build one", "can you make this side a wall or a wall to 5ft with frosted glass above since you will be looking at the arse of my fence? *", how much more insulating a wall is over glazing panels with a view of a fence 4 inches away and so on. You might also try the reason I moved mine in, which was "what if you need to get a TV cable or an air-conditioning unit connected into your lounge (once the conservatory overheats it)" but that is relying a lot on their knowledge.

 

But you are now in a position where your strategy has to be built on legal rights and diplomacy, rather than planning policy.

 

Most of your easy leeway to make demands turned into a pumpkin when they got the PP.

 

For all of these you need input before they actually order it. At that point it will be a right pain for them and it won't happen.

F

 

* you could threaten to put a mural of Homer Simpson mooning on their side of your fence panel, but that is likely to lead to a lack of cooperation.

 

 

[AliG]

My assumption was the conservatory had a solid wall on the boundary.

 

If it was glass they wouldn't apply the 45 degree rule, but I think that glass is unlikely against the boundary.

[Ferdinand]

9 minutes ago, AliG said:

My assumption was the conservatory had a solid wall on the boundary.

 

If it was glass they wouldn't apply the 45 degree rule, but I think that glass is unlikely against the boundary.

 

It's a just in case. With walls to both boundaries it would be tight to meet the "50% or more glass walls" requirement to be a conservatory:

 

Definition of a conservatory: A conservatory is defined as "a building that has not less than seventy five percent of its roof area made of translucent material (e.g. glass or polycarbonate), and not less than fifty percent of its total wall area made of glass or translucent material."

 

 

[Alchemist]

10 hours ago, Alchemist said:

the

Thank you all for your replies. I had figured out that they will not rescind planning permission - it is normally never done. Basically we have a patio 8ft wide (20ft long). No conservatory for us. That is all the land we have. They actually wanted to have their door open outwards onto the conservatory - but I think they have stopped that now. They have had builders in the last few days just to put a skylight in. They have used the RoW constantly during the day and effectively we could sit not on it during working hours. I`m dreading to think what it will be like when the conservatory proper is built. They want to pump concrete over it.

 

It was not my intention to overturn the planning permission, but I am angry with the planning department and want to make a formal complaint. It seems in the end that everything comes down to the subjectivity of the planning officer  

 

 

[Alchemist]

6 hours ago, AliG said:

My assumption was the conservatory had a solid wall on the boundary.

 

If it was glass they wouldn't apply the 45 degree rule, but I think that glass is unlikely against the boundary.

Will be white pvc

[dpmiller]

7 hours ago, Alchemist said:

They have used the RoW constantly

 

 

Hang on, is your patio a RoW, or is there laneway/back entry/street behind it?

[Alchemist]

The patio is a right of way.

[Alchemist]

I`d also ,like some help with this  matter. I really am trying not to be obstructive but we are very stressed out because we feel we are being bullied. The neighbours have had a new flat roof on their extension installed over the last 3 days. We considered this maintenance and so did not object with the constant use and depositing of materials on our patio. But we really could not use the patio during this time.

 

The easement on the deeds is just a bald statement. " No.2 has a right of way. with or without vehicles over No.1 (us)" 

 

I have written to the Land Registry for some sort of clarity (It was they who wrote the easement after there was an error in it but nothing back yet.

 

Could I have some opinion of what is allowed by the above statement? Do it gave them carte blanch to use the patio for a new build and through the use of the right of way render our patio unusable for up to three weeks? 

 

[markc]

Can you post a pic? I’m struggling to see how your patio can be a ROW unless it shouldn’t be a patio in the first place.

[Alchemist]

[Alchemist]

PS The new conservatory  will jut (along the fence) by about 1m from where it is now. This would put it opposite the window that is just in view. Thanks

Edited August 25, 2021 by Alchemist

[markc]

Hi, I’m even more confused now.

what is on the other side of the wall/fence?

Do the inner properties have much bigger gardens?

do your deeds show this patio area as yours?

[Alchemist]

The gardens are very peculiar. What you see here is our patio. The other side of the fence is the garden of the next door neighbour. Their garden is the same length as our patio. The block of 4 cottages were back (1910?) one farm house that was chopped up into the four cottages. The neighbours come out of the door you see and then take a right angle to go out onto the street. The row was originally reserved for the owner of No2 to bring coal in from the road. Yes  the deeds do show this patio as ours. (Just looked at the deeds the next door`s garden is the same length but about three tines wider. I HOPE THIS HELPS

[Alchemist]

I didn`t mean to shout.LOL

[Alchemist]

We were asked today to remove our washing to let workmen through with their tools.

[Temp]

Sadly if they have a right if way over your patio there is little or nothing you can do to prevent them using it.

 

Do they need to use it or have they got an alternative route to the highway? If they have an alternative you could consider offering to  buy out their ROW. The cost would depend on their need and your ability to haggle. There would be some solicitors and land registry costs.

 

 

[Alchemist]

Hi Temp... The issue is not about whether the right of way exists or not, it is about excessive use. We have acknowledged the existence of the right of way for about 30 years. Is it reasonable for 4 men to continually use the right of way constantly for say three weeks to remove rubble and bring in concrete and conservatory panels? The NDN actually wanted my wife to remove her washing today!

Edited August 26, 2021 by Alchemist

[Temp]

On 25/08/2021 at 15:01, Alchemist said:

The easement on the deeds is just a bald statement. " No.2 has a right of way. with or without vehicles over No.1 (us)" 

 

Is that in your deeds or theirs? If its in your deeds it would be worth looking at the wording in the neighbours because I believe that's where the details and any obligations and restrictions are listed. You can get a copy of their title from the LR for about £7...

 

https://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/eservices/FindAProperty/view/QuickEnquiryInit.do?_ga=2.37960928.2119531641.1630009460-877028900.1600035571

 

It is possible that only the owner has a ROW not other people like trades but the devil is in the wording. Its also possible the wording is so bad as to be unenforceable. For example if "No1" isn't sufficiently well defined.

 

This has general information including excessive use..

 

http://www.boundary-problems.co.uk/boundary-problems/priv-r-o-w.html

 

Generally:

• you may pass and repass along a right of way as long as you do not stop and linger on the right of way;
• if the right of way is obstructed then you may divert along another route provided that the diversion remains on land belonging to the servient tenement (otherwise you would be trespassing on a third party's land);
• a gate is not considered as an obstruction of the right of way, provided that the users of the dominant tenement have the means of opening and/or unlocking the gate;
• the owner of the dominant tenement cannot expect the route to be widened, strengthened or given extra headroom just because his needs have changed: he is entitled only to the width, weight or headroom that was envisaged at the time of grant of the right of way.

A private right of way on foot permits you to:

• pass and repass on foot between the dominant tenement and the public highway;
• with or without a load that one person might be expected to be capable of carrying;
• or pushing a small barrow or trolley or perambulator, or wheeling (not riding) a bicycle, provided that the wheeled device is not too wide to be accommodated by the footpath and by any gates along the path.

A vehicular private right of way permits you to:

• drive vehicles of up to a permitted width, height and weight along the carriageway between the public highway and the dominant tenement;
• stop a vehicle on the right of way immediately adjacent to the dominant tenement for the purpose of loading and unloading that vehicle provided that there is not an adequate loading or parking area on the dominant land;
• perform other reasonable acts, such as pulling off the carriageway onto the verge in order to pass oncoming vehicles.

Snip

 

Excessive user

Owners of servient tenements are sometimes aggrieved when there is a dramatic increase in the traffic using the right of way across their land. They may take Court action pleading excessive user, ie. that a higher level of use than permitted has taken place. Such action is almost certainly doomed to failure because, whilst other limits may be in place on the right of way, there is usually no limit on the number of times in a given period that the dominant tenement may use the right of way.

[Temp]

 

54 minutes ago, Alchemist said:

Is it reasonable for 4 men to continually use the right of way constantly for say three weeks to remove rubble and bring in concrete and conservatory panels? The NDN actually wanted my wife to remove her washing today!

 

It would appear that they can use it unless there are explicit restrictions in the title deeds and yes washing maybe considered an obstruction. Sorry.

 

http://www.boundary-problems.co.uk/boundary-problems/easements.html

 

Usually the "rightful user" referred to in the preceding paragraph is the owner of the dominant tenement. In the case of a private right of way it is anyone with a legitimate purpose for visiting the land (which could be the rightful owner, his immediate family who live there, any servants or staff who work there, anyone visiting the land for social or business or duty reasons). This explains why the postman (for example) may make use of the private right of way even though he does not own the dominant tenement.