First time self-build

[moncchichi]

Hi everyone

 

First time self-builder here. Purchased land with planning permission for a small detached house (85m2 foot print). I’m just at the point of construction drawings being developed for submission to building controls. I currently have 2-3 issues to resolve and hope you can provide advice.

Right to Light:

The previous owner of the land had issues with the neighbour who are completely against the development and claimed right to light which seemingly had been resolved as the proposed development was cut back in scale with guidance from right to light surveyor. Unfortunately I was not given details or access to the right to light report. I met the neighbour and was advised it has not been resolved. Therefore for my piece of mind I have decided to appoint a right to light surveyor to carry out another assessment however the neighbours will not allow access to their property (and never did even with the previous owner) to allow an accurate survey to be made. Therefore only publicly available information on floor plans and external dimensions can be taken. Has anyone had any previous experience with how to handle this? I was told that the right to light insurance would not be available and going ahead with the development would come with risk. But I cannot afford not to go ahead with the development due to the high debts taken for the land purchase that would probably exceed compensation if it ever came to that.

 

Foundations:
I had a soil investigation carried out which showed high bearing capacity, approx 1-1.6m sand/gravel with underlying clayey sand which would have enabled me to go for 1m strip foundation. However I was advised by SE that due to the oak tree approx 7m away from the front of the house that 2.2-2.5m foundation depth would be required at the front of the development which can be stepped back. Since it is possible that there could be sufficient sand/gravel layer, I may be able to revert to the foundation depth for non shrinkable soils i.e 1m. The SE is not confident as it can fall either one way or the other and advised pile foundations but I have read some forums and saw raft foundations or even a combination of the two being mentioned. SE does not recommended raft foundations at all given the approx 1m of ground that would need to be removed. Any advice with which one to go for in terms of pricing and depth of excavations likely required?

 

Party Wall:

Given the difficulty of the neighbour I would like to avoid having to give party wall notice for excavation notice. Can anyone ascertain whether screw piles below neighbour foundation level within 3m is notifiable under the act? I have read so many articles and forums. Some state piling (even screw piles) is notifiable and some indicate/suggest no. I have also read the party wall act and the thing that sticks out to me is that it indicates excavation or any part of the building or structure that is below neighbour foundation is notifiable. Therefore I would think screw foundation comes under this. Have I interpreted this correctly?

 

Thank you in advance for your help!

[Jilly]

Did the light issue come up on planning? I wonder if the original survey is included in the documents on the on line salivation? 

[Gus Potter]

1 hour ago, moncchichi said:

however the neighbours will not allow access to their property (and never did even with the previous owner) to allow an accurate survey to be made. Therefore only publicly available information on floor plans and external dimensions can be taken.

The public information is the key plus you need to go to the council and library archives and possibly pay for a search on what if any consented alterations have been made to the house next door. You may find that the neighbours have made unauthorised alterations and that may explain their reluctance to engage. How deep have you delved into the public records? I always advise to play something like this off a straight bat. Go right back and make sure you have all the basic facts correct. It sounds brutal but if they have made alterations without consent then these don't count.. just don't warn them in case they get restrospective consent before you get your submission in..

 

Once you establish that you are on a sound footing and you work from there. The right to light calculations are complex when close to a boundary and they vary depending on how your project will impact on say a utility room next door or a bedroom / habitable space often called an office but still a habitable apartment. You also have over shaddowing that applies to say external spaces and privacy.. looking into their windows.

 

This requires diplomacy as you are going to have to live next door and you don't want to fall out big time in an ideal world.. but you if you can establish what you are entitled you have a basis on which to negotiate your way ahead..as you have other things to deal with as follows..

1 hour ago, moncchichi said:

I had a soil investigation carried out which showed high bearing capacity, approx 1-1.6m sand/gravel with underlying clayey sand which would have enabled me to go for 1m strip foundation. However I was advised by SE that due to the oak tree approx 7m away from the front of the house that 2.2-2.5m foundation depth would be required at the front of the development which can be stepped back. Since it is possible that there could be sufficient sand/gravel layer, I may be able to revert to the foundation depth for non shrinkable soils i.e 1m. The SE is not confident as it can fall either one way or the other and advised pile foundations but I have read some forums and saw raft foundations or even a combination of the two being mentioned. SE does not recommended raft foundations at all given the approx 1m of ground that would need to be removed. Any advice with which one to go for in terms of pricing and depth of excavations likely required?

 

Can you post the soil investigation report and a plan of the site showing where the tree is? What is the height of the tree, what is the trunk diameter 1.0 m above the ground, how far does the canopy extend, what is the orientation of the site in relation to the tree. It's important to understand where the tree gets it's structural support to resist the prevailing wind and nutrients from.. (which could be from a diferent direction). Then you can take view on where the roots grow and the impact it will have on your founds. Your SE is playing safe and sticking to the BC and NHBC guidance.. probably because you have not paid them enough to look at this in greater detail. Pay them an extra five / seven hundred quid to sort this out, provide a bespoke Engineering solution for your site and they could save you thousands. A bespoke solution would require your SE to have sufficient expertise in this area which not all SE do have.

 

Can you cut the tree down and wait 18 months before building?.. a brutal approach but we are taking money here and not one I would advocate as a first option.. but if the tree is old / diseased that may be the best approach. You could go to an Arborist for a tree report that covers root propegation and life expectancy of the tree.. why adopt a complex found design if the tree is on it's last legs.. trees die like all of us!

 

I think your SE is being cautious here as probaby does not have a lot of info to go on.

1 hour ago, moncchichi said:

Given the difficulty of the neighbour I would like to avoid having to give party wall notice for excavation notice. Can anyone ascertain whether screw piles below neighbour foundation level within 3m is notifiable under the act? I have read so many articles and forums. Some state piling (even screw piles) is notifiable and some indicate/suggest no. I have also read the party wall act and the thing that sticks out to me is that it indicates excavation or any part of the building or structure that is below neighbour foundation is notifiable. Therefore I would think screw foundation comes under this. Have I interpreted this correctly?

 

Work on the premis that you'll need to some PWA notification, don't let this drive your initial design assumptions. Any pile or found that adds significant extra stress to ground you don't own basically requires consideration under the PWA. Screw piles do indeed mitigate the need for deep excavations.. but they come with potentially significant problems later on.. there is no free lunch.

 

I would go for the simple stupid type found, get a handle on the tree, gather the facts on the neighbours position in terms of light, don't panic and take it a step at a time.

 

 

 

[miike]

Why are you paying a right to light surveyor to come out? It has already been granted planning permission, and planners seemingly took this into account. Are you planning to change the design and submit a new application based off the new assessment? If you're not, then what benefit will the new assessment be to you?

 

Do you have an example of a single case anywhere in the UK where someone has been granted planning permission, built to their approved design, and then been successfully sued by their neighbour for loss of light? If not, what exactly are you worrying (and spending money) about? 

[moncchichi]

14 hours ago, Jilly said:

Did the light issue come up on planning? I wonder if the original survey is included in the documents on the on line salivation? 

It did come up as the history behind the objections from neighbour were highlighted. The planning department indicated that Right to Light issues is a civil matter.

[moncchichi]

13 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

The public information is the key plus you need to go to the council and library archives and possibly pay for a search on what if any consented alterations have been made to the house next door. You may find that the neighbours have made unauthorised alterations and that may explain their reluctance to engage. How deep have you delved into the public records? I always advise to play something like this off a straight bat. Go right back and make sure you have all the basic facts correct. It sounds brutal but if they have made alterations without consent then these don't count.. just don't warn them in case they get restrospective consent before you get your submission in..

 

Once you establish that you are on a sound footing and you work from there. The right to light calculations are complex when close to a boundary and they vary depending on how your project will impact on say a utility room next door or a bedroom / habitable space often called an office but still a habitable apartment. You also have over shaddowing that applies to say external spaces and privacy.. looking into their windows.

 

This requires diplomacy as you are going to have to live next door and you don't want to fall out big time in an ideal world.. but you if you can establish what you are entitled you have a basis on which to negotiate your way ahead..as you have other things to deal with as follows..

Can you post the soil investigation report and a plan of the site showing where the tree is? What is the height of the tree, what is the trunk diameter 1.0 m above the ground, how far does the canopy extend, what is the orientation of the site in relation to the tree. It's important to understand where the tree gets it's structural support to resist the prevailing wind and nutrients from.. (which could be from a diferent direction). Then you can take view on where the roots grow and the impact it will have on your founds. Your SE is playing safe and sticking to the BC and NHBC guidance.. probably because you have not paid them enough to look at this in greater detail. Pay them an extra five / seven hundred quid to sort this out, provide a bespoke Engineering solution for your site and they could save you thousands. A bespoke solution would require your SE to have sufficient expertise in this area which not all SE do have.

 

Can you cut the tree down and wait 18 months before building?.. a brutal approach but we are taking money here and not one I would advocate as a first option.. but if the tree is old / diseased that may be the best approach. You could go to an Arborist for a tree report that covers root propegation and life expectancy of the tree.. why adopt a complex found design if the tree is on it's last legs.. trees die like all of us!

 

I think your SE is being cautious here as probaby does not have a lot of info to go on.

Work on the premis that you'll need to some PWA notification, don't let this drive your initial design assumptions. Any pile or found that adds significant extra stress to ground you don't own basically requires consideration under the PWA. Screw piles do indeed mitigate the need for deep excavations.. but they come with potentially significant problems later on.. there is no free lunch.

 

I would go for the simple stupid type found, get a handle on the tree, gather the facts on the neighbours position in terms of light, don't panic and take it a step at a time.

 

 

 

Thank you for the detailed response.

I have taken information e.g. floor

plans available from public records and did try the council but they only archive information from the past 10-15 years. An external survey has been done with laser scanner. However the right to light specialist states that the wall layout inside the rooms would also have an impact and therefore without being able to survey what is inside, then there will always be a risk. With regards to overshadowing, a Daylight and Sunlight assessment has already been carried out during the planning stage and was used as input for the planning decision.

 

I do have the soil report and tree influence diagram as well as an extensive arboricultural report. But I am hesitant to share publicly. The sand and gravel has less than 35% fines, the underlying clayey sand is of low to medium plasticity (22%). Significant desiccation found at 2m at the front of the property. The tree root protection area extends to the south east corner of the development and only impacts 1% of the floor area. Girth is about 900mm and height about 14m. SE wants to use mature tree height for calculations. Since I am thinking of taking out structural warranty, I presume I must follow the requirements dictated in the technical manual from BC/NHBC or similar. Unfortunately the tree is not on my land and I cannot wait 18 months. I took a large mortgage to cover the land purchase and with these high interest rates, every day of delay has significant impact on the financials.
 

I am willing to pay more for an engineered foundation but the SE suggested I go direct to the piling specialist for the design and install. I was thinking of assuming a shallow simple foundation for now until I can get more info from the local authority building controls on what is the likely accepted solution. I am concerned that even if it is smooth sailing to the point when it comes to excavating at 1m for shallow simple foundation and if the building controls request for deeper foundation then I would then be excavating below the neighbours foundation which would trigger the PWA. And then it would be a length wait until that is resolved. The other potential option is to assume a simple deep foundation, and get the PWA done on that basis. Although I have been told that if any of the information provided along with the PW notice changes then it could invalidate the notice.

[moncchichi]

13 hours ago, miike said:

Why are you paying a right to light surveyor to come out? It has already been granted planning permission, and planners seemingly took this into account. Are you planning to change the design and submit a new application based off the new assessment? If you're not, then what benefit will the new assessment be to you?

 

Do you have an example of a single case anywhere in the UK where someone has been granted planning permission, built to their approved design, and then been successfully sued by their neighbour for loss of light? If not, what exactly are you worrying (and spending money) about? 

Unfortunately the right to lights is not dealt with by the planners as it is a civil matter. So the planning permission does not give me the assurance I need. I am keeping to the scaled back development. I am not permitted access to the right to lights assessment that was carried out before because apparently it is legally privileged. 
 

I have came across a case. See link to the article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3563513/amp/Dentist-GP-wife-face-200-000-plus-bill-building-extension-planning-permission-1-65m-home-blocked-neighbours-light.html

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> I am not permitted access to the right to lights assessment that was carried out before because apparently it is legally privileged. 

 

This was done by the previous owner, the one who obtained the permission? But not made available to you? I think your solicitor should have insisted. And you can still ask.

 

Goodness the Mail article makes sad reading - what nonsense. 'Right to light' in a garage occasionally used as workshop and office?

 

Maybe ask your neighbours to detail exactly what the problem (and solution) is.

 

I think some people will try all kinds of tricks so it's worth pushing hard into all the detail.

 

 

Re the foundation - ask your BC (maybe informally) if they have any knowledge to offer in that specific geographic area.

 

p.s. this self-build game seems to be full of existential challenges. Assume you'll prevail, you just have to figure out the best way to do that  

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by Alan Ambrose

[moncchichi]

2 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

>>> I am not permitted access to the right to lights assessment that was carried out before because apparently it is legally privileged. 

 

This was done by the previous owner, the one who obtained the permission? But not made available to you? I think your solicitor should have insisted. And you can still ask.

 

Goodness the Mail article makes sad reading - what nonsense. 'Right to light' in a garage occasionally used as workshop and office?

 

Maybe ask your neighbours to detail exactly what the problem (and solution) is.

 

I think some people will try all kinds of tricks so it's worth pushing hard into all the detail. 

 

 

Yes, the right to lights was done by previous owner. My solicitor did not even flag this up and I should have asked but from what I read on the planning permission it had seemingly been resolved (my understanding is that according to the planners, there is no right to light injury but also states it is not for them to make that conclusion) so I did not think it was still an issue.

 

The neighbours are very difficult and persistent. They challenge every detail (with merit or not) and have already taken this to court over several occasions with the previous owner.

[Jilly]

20 hours ago, Jilly said:

Did the light issue come up on planning? I wonder if the original survey is included in the documents on the on line salivation? 

😂predictive text has mauled my presumed misspelling of ‘submission‘ 

[joe90]

4 hours ago, moncchichi said:

and have already taken this to court over several occasions with the previous owner.

Can you not find the details of this from public records or the previous owner ?

[moncchichi]

3 hours ago, joe90 said:

Can you not find the details of this from public records or the previous owner ?

There were details of the claim and then the final decision. Nothing else provided by previous owner. I know that the neighbour’s lawyers had communication with previous owner’s lawyers but again this information could not be shared since it is legally privileged.

[Alan Ambrose]

OK, if you’re giving us a complete report, then you’re being misled on a number of points:
 

+ your solicitor would likely have been negligent if they hadn’t have investigated the right to light issue fully and demanded the report from the sellers etc. Talk to the solicitor and then the managing partner to get the ball rolling re their potential negligence. You’re doing the groundwork at this point and collecting evidence, no need to be aggressive. In fact, try to stay as calm and reasonable as possible. But be firm.

+ the sellers would have misrepresented themselves if they said the issue was closed when it clearly wasn’t. Hiding the report from you with some BS legal privilege argument would be part of that misrepresentation. No solicitor, worth their salt, would put up with that. You might want to discuss this point with your solicitor.

+ LPAs do often use right to light as one of their planning criteria. You’ll find examples here I think on BH.

+ the ‘legal privilege’ argument is BS. Your solicitor could ask for any and all info they want and decide (with you) not to proceed if the information was not provided. No solicitor would accept that argument.

+ you might want to get some evidence on file. Write ‘contemporaneous notes’ of all verbal communications and copy them to the other party asking them to verify the notes are accurate. Add a line saying ‘if you don’t confirm by xxx then you will assume the notes are accurate’.

 

I would still ask the neighbours, in as pleasant a way as possible, what design changes they would accept. If they say ‘only for you never to build a house’ then that’s good to know too (and document). If they say ‘move this element a metre further back’ then see if that can be accommodated. You might also project that you’re not going to accept any more BS or sold anymore lines. Ask them to provide you with a history of their conflict/discussions with the seller and document it.
 

Lastly, is there something important you’re not telling us here? Otherwise this situation would be one for the case law books and solicitor training manuals.

[Jilly]

On 10/11/2023 at 14:13, moncchichi said:

I took a large mortgage to cover the land purchase and with these high interest rates, every day of delay has significant impact on the financials.

 

Read up about living on site in a static caravan as delays can happen and it can save a significant amount of money plus it keeps your finger on the pulse. With the best will in the world, builders don’t always measure properly/ follow plans/respect neighbours etc If it wasn’t included in the planning it should be easy to add it as it’s usually permitted. Your neighbour will be watching, so everything needs to be by the book. There is also a thread on ‘things we would have done differently’ which is very helpful. Self building can be v stressful, all the best.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Jilly

[moncchichi]

11 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

OK, if you’re giving us a complete report, then you’re being misled on a number of points:
 

+ your solicitor would likely have been negligent if they hadn’t have investigated the right to light issue fully and demanded the report from the sellers etc. Talk to the solicitor and then the managing partner to get the ball rolling re their potential negligence. You’re doing the groundwork at this point and collecting evidence, no need to be aggressive. In fact, try to stay as calm and reasonable as possible. But be firm.

+ the sellers would have misrepresented themselves if they said the issue was closed when it clearly wasn’t. Hiding the report from you with some BS legal privilege argument would be part of that misrepresentation. No solicitor, worth their salt, would put up with that. You might want to discuss this point with your solicitor.

+ LPAs do often use right to light as one of their planning criteria. You’ll find examples here I think on BH.

+ the ‘legal privilege’ argument is BS. Your solicitor could ask for any and all info they want and decide (with you) not to proceed if the information was not provided. No solicitor would accept that argument.

+ you might want to get some evidence on file. Write ‘contemporaneous notes’ of all verbal communications and copy them to the other party asking them to verify the notes are accurate. Add a line saying ‘if you don’t confirm by xxx then you will assume the notes are accurate’.

 

I would still ask the neighbours, in as pleasant a way as possible, what design changes they would accept. If they say ‘only for you never to build a house’ then that’s good to know too (and document). If they say ‘move this element a metre further back’ then see if that can be accommodated. You might also project that you’re not going to accept any more BS or sold anymore lines. Ask them to provide you with a history of their conflict/discussions with the seller and document it.
 

Lastly, is there something important you’re not telling us here? Otherwise this situation would be one for the case law books and solicitor training manuals.

Thank you for your response.

 

So the right to light was never highlighted or discussed with my solicitor. As I mentioned I was aware of the right to light but from my understanding of the info provided to me, it seemed to be resolved but the seller never really used the word ‘resolved’ - they only stated that following the scaled back proposal and sharing of right to lights assessment to the neighbour, the neighbour did not provide any comment or pursue anything further. The whole claim of info being ‘legally privileged’ came directly from the seller (not via the solicitors) after completion of the land purchase and after I had met the neighbour whose response provoked me to revisit the right to light issue. When I asked the neighbour to provide details, they refused. So am not really sure what their strategy is as they do not want to cooperate at all.

[moncchichi]

4 hours ago, Jilly said:

Read up about living on site in a static caravan as delays can happen and it can save a significant amount of money plus it keeps your finger on the pulse. With the best will in the world, builders don’t always measure properly/ follow plans/respect neighbours etc If it wasn’t included in the planning it should be easy to add it as it’s usually permitted. Your neighbour will be watching, so everything needs to be by the book. There is also a thread on ‘things we would have done differently’ which is very helpful. Self building can be v stressful, all the best.

Thank you. I would have liked to but unfortunately the deed does not allow mobile homes on site so unfortunately it is not an option. And yes getting the measurements and elevations correct to a tee is going to be ever so important given the sensitivity of the issue.

 

[Jilly]

16 hours ago, moncchichi said:

Thank you. I would have liked to but unfortunately the deed does not allow mobile homes on site so unfortunately it is not an option. And yes getting the measurements and elevations correct to a tee is going to be ever so important given the sensitivity of the issue.

 

Might not be to your taste, but how about a caravan (ostensibly as a rest room) and store your belongings in a container?  These are usually allowed on building sites for secure storage.

 

Sorry to push you on this, and might be none of our business, but it feels like a red flag that you've borrowed heavily just for the land... Have you got cash for the build? If you are also going to borrow for this, plus rent a house (unless you have a mortgage free property to live in), if you did your financial calculations when the interest rates were didley squat, you need to do them again as you could get in big trouble half way through if something unexpected happens.

 

There are various ways you can protect the downsides, all with pros and cons. For example, you can part build to get some of the building liveable and do the rest when conditions are more favourable ( but you can't get VAT back on the second part for the build). Or you could build the garage first if there is one and camp in that. These ideas allow you to build as you earn, which is much slower, but cheaper because you can source deals, wait for builders etc. Project managing yourself  (or after 'watertight' is common) and saves a lot but depends on your occupation. Inexperience can be expensive too. 

 

Don't forget to explore CIL and get exemption. 

 

For most self builders,  if you don't have the cash, roughing it, to some extent, is the answer...If you are building just to sell on, tread carefully, it's difficult to do at the moment.  However, you might be less perfectionist than those of us who are in for the long haul which will probably save you (some) of the sleepless nights...

Edited November 12, 2023 by Jilly

[Alan Ambrose]

OK well this does seem to be a perfect storm. But also we on BH have v little information to work with, so could you please give more info:

 

+ what kind of situation is this plot, town? open countryside? suburbs?

+ is your solicitor a one man band? simple conveyancer or paralegal? junior? newly qualified? partner? mid-range local with a few offices? national organisation?

+ what *is* the actual likely 'right-of-light' problem? distances? angles? history? Changes in design so far (should be on the LPA planning portal).

+ it's unusual to communicate directly with the seller about important matters without the solicitors knowing. How did that come about? Did you know any of the parties before the transaction? Was their a reason you didn't communicate the issue to your solicitor or ask for all the detail, history, docs etc directly from the seller?

+ etc etc etc - anything that might be relevant.

 

The long and short is:

 

+ your solicitor's fiduciary duty us to protect you and guide you through the transaction. This would include all important matters (and a lot that is on their laundry list that may not seem important to you). If they fail in that, they have not done their duty, and you need to help them address their failing.

+ the seller's duty is to reveal any and all important facts and, in particular, any shortcomings. Property, financial instrument and insurance transactions are not 'buyer beware' style of transactions because it is expected that one party has much more information than the other. This is different setup to say, buying a car. If the seller failed to accurately bring the right-to-light issue to you attention or gave the impression that the issue had been resolved, they were acting unlawfully.

+ anyone (e.g. you neighbour) with a legal axe to grind needs to 'plead their case'. That is, they must provide the information and legal argument they are expecting to rely on. It's not acceptable  to say 'we have a problem, but we're not going to detail what it is'. You have a reasonable case to make that if they cause you unnecessary cost or time delay by their action or inaction, then you have a potential case for costs against them.

+ what's the power balance here? Is the seller or the neighbour an experienced lawyer? Do you have the desire and/or resources to fight your way through this?

 

I would write a tracked formal letter to each party giving the picture as you see it and inviting them to respond appropriately with a time limit. Then also speak to someone appropriately senior at the solicitor's practice to see if they agree they have failed in their fiducial duty. You may get 'yes, you're right' let us sort this out at our expense' or the run-around. In any case you will pick up useful evidence for the evidence pack.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Alan Ambrose

[Jilly]

The last thing you want is the neighbour suing you for 'right to light' as you build or as you complete. I was under the impression that once it has planning, it's too late, but it sounds like the neighbour is determined... 

[Haylingbilly]

"right to light" is pretty vague - I would check with your conveyancing solicitor. In my title deeds one of my neighbours has a right to light expressed within my deeds  - but my solicitor said you have to be building very close to them to be able to claim right to light and stop the build - and despite objecting on may aspects they never raised right to light as an issue. But they may not have this as part of their or your deeds and in which case it is not an issue. Or they may be incorrectly referring to overlooking from a planning planning perspective as a right to light and in which case as you have planning then this is a non event (although from their perspective they may still be loosing what they incorrectly perceive as a right to light and therefore is not resolved).

First port of call I think is your solicitor and then take it from there....

[moncchichi]

On 12/11/2023 at 13:24, Jilly said:

Might not be to your taste, but how about a caravan (ostensibly as a rest room) and store your belongings in a container?  These are usually allowed on building sites for secure storage.

 

Sorry to push you on this, and might be none of our business, but it feels like a red flag that you've borrowed heavily just for the land... Have you got cash for the build? If you are also going to borrow for this, plus rent a house (unless you have a mortgage free property to live in), if you did your financial calculations when the interest rates were didley squat, you need to do them again as you could get in big trouble half way through if something unexpected happens.

 

There are various ways you can protect the downsides, all with pros and cons. For example, you can part build to get some of the building liveable and do the rest when conditions are more favourable ( but you can't get VAT back on the second part for the build). Or you could build the garage first if there is one and camp in that. These ideas allow you to build as you earn, which is much slower, but cheaper because you can source deals, wait for builders etc. Project managing yourself  (or after 'watertight' is common) and saves a lot but depends on your occupation. Inexperience can be expensive too. 

 

Don't forget to explore CIL and get exemption. 

 

For most self builders,  if you don't have the cash, roughing it, to some extent, is the answer...If you are building just to sell on, tread carefully, it's difficult to do at the moment.  However, you might be less perfectionist than those of us who are in for the long haul which will probably save you (some) of the sleepless nights...

Thank you for the suggestions.

 

I do have some money in cash which will

be used for the build. And I plan to fund the rest of the build with the sale of my home (hopefully soon but the market is very quiet).

 

I did check CIL (I actually was not aware of such levy until I saw some discussion on BH).

 

Thanks again!

[moncchichi]

On 12/11/2023 at 13:33, Alan Ambrose said:

OK well this does seem to be a perfect storm. But also we on BH have v little information to work with, so could you please give more info:

 

+ what kind of situation is this plot, town? open countryside? suburbs?

+ is your solicitor a one man band? simple conveyancer or paralegal? junior? newly qualified? partner? mid-range local with a few offices? national organisation?

+ what *is* the actual likely 'right-of-light' problem? distances? angles? history? Changes in design so far (should be on the LPA planning portal).

+ it's unusual to communicate directly with the seller about important matters without the solicitors knowing. How did that come about? Did you know any of the parties before the transaction? Was their a reason you didn't communicate the issue to your solicitor or ask for all the detail, history, docs etc directly from the seller?

+ etc etc etc - anything that might be relevant.

 

The long and short is:

 

+ your solicitor's fiduciary duty us to protect you and guide you through the transaction. This would include all important matters (and a lot that is on their laundry list that may not seem important to you). If they fail in that, they have not done their duty, and you need to help them address their failing.

+ the seller's duty is to reveal any and all important facts and, in particular, any shortcomings. Property, financial instrument and insurance transactions are not 'buyer beware' style of transactions because it is expected that one party has much more information than the other. This is different setup to say, buying a car. If the seller failed to accurately bring the right-to-light issue to you attention or gave the impression that the issue had been resolved, they were acting unlawfully.

+ anyone (e.g. you neighbour) with a legal axe to grind needs to 'plead their case'. That is, they must provide the information and legal argument they are expecting to rely on. It's not acceptable  to say 'we have a problem, but we're not going to detail what it is'. You have a reasonable case to make that if they cause you unnecessary cost or time delay by their action or inaction, then you have a potential case for costs against them.

+ what's the power balance here? Is the seller or the neighbour an experienced lawyer? Do you have the desire and/or resources to fight your way through this?

 

I would write a tracked formal letter to each party giving the picture as you see it and inviting them to respond appropriately with a time limit. Then also speak to someone appropriately senior at the solicitor's practice to see if they agree they have failed in their fiducial duty. You may get 'yes, you're right' let us sort this out at our expense' or the run-around. In any case you will pick up useful evidence for the evidence pack.

Thank you for the advice.

-The plot is an infill, in a city. So the proposed development is within 1-2m from the neighbour.

-the solicitor is from an established firm that have several offices in south east, qualified in the past 3-4 years.

- I am not changing the designing. The right to light issue is unknown, as either sides have not shared details. 

- I was able to get in touch with the seller directly via the architect. I did not know either parties before. As mentioned I did not ask for details during the sale via the solicitors since I was confident the issue had been ‘resolved’, from the sellers response and from the info provided in the planning report.

- I would say the neighbour has more tendency to get lawyers involved whereas I don’t have the spare funds to do so.

[moncchichi]

On 12/11/2023 at 16:58, Haylingbilly said:

"right to light" is pretty vague - I would check with your conveyancing solicitor. In my title deeds one of my neighbours has a right to light expressed within my deeds  - but my solicitor said you have to be building very close to them to be able to claim right to light and stop the build - and despite objecting on may aspects they never raised right to light as an issue. But they may not have this as part of their or your deeds and in which case it is not an issue. Or they may be incorrectly referring to overlooking from a planning planning perspective as a right to light and in which case as you have planning then this is a non event (although from their perspective they may still be loosing what they incorrectly perceive as a right to light and therefore is not resolved).

First port of call I think is your solicitor and then take it from there....

No I believe the neighbour knows exactly what they are talking about as in their planning objections they state loss of daylight/sunlight, overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy which are separate to right to light issues.

[Gus Potter]

1 hour ago, moncchichi said:

No I believe the neighbour knows exactly what they are talking about as in their planning objections they state loss of daylight/sunlight, overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy which are separate to right to light issues.

Ok let's assume they do. Now lets delve a bit deeper into how you put something together.

 

I said earlier that "It sounds brutal but if they have made alterations without consent then these don't count.."

 

You may need to force their hand... but if you do then you need to do a bit more homework.

 

Who decides the amount of light you are entitled to, how do they measure it and then judge what is a reasonable loss of light?

 

We all have to live together so as development occurs some light is inevitably lost. Take London and say the Shard.. it casts a big shaddow.. some folk somewhere must be getting a little less light! But how do you decide what is a little less or swinging the lead?

 

I have attached BRE 209 which I think is publically available. Start at page 15 Clause 2.2.7 and then read around.  This bit deals with when you are pretty close to a boundary.

 

This could be the key bit of info you need in that there is recognition that a lot of development results in a certain loss of light.

 

In summary if you can tailor your design to comply with the recommendations of BRE 209 then your neighbour would have to put forward a counter arguement.. which could be expensive for them as they would have to come up with why they disagree with the BRE.  I use this as in Scotland and it is referenced in the Scottish planning regs.. so you should find reference  in the UK regs as the BRE serves all the UK. Also they would need to fesse up as to what they have been doing next door! If the loss of light impacts a bathroom for example .. then the game changes.

 

If you can get a design that say complies with the recommendations in the BRE then you have strengthend your hand. But to cover yourself you could take out an indemnity policy to cover potential action by your neighbours. Ask your solicitor what this would cost for that piece of mind. You would need to jump through some hoops insurance wise, get someone to translate BRE 209 in numbers with a report.

 

If they did decide to kick up a fuss and find out your insurance is going to cover the costs.. up to them if they want to lose their shirt if their case fails. If they win then you should be covered if you set the policy up right.. which will take a good bit of your time to explain to an insurer what the risk is you want them to cover... hence the homework.

 

BE CAREFUL.. for these types of indemnity policies to be effective you must often not alert a potential complainant. A good example here is where you have converted your attic without BC / planning permission. If you let the council know that you have a problem and then take out the policy there is fine print that can make it invalid.

 

@moncchichi be careful not to identify yourself or your site on BH which is a public forum.

 

Hope this helps and keep us updated as  to how you are getting on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BRE 209 Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight BRE 2022.pdf

[MikeSharp01]

On 10/11/2023 at 00:20, miike said:

Why are you paying a right to light surveyor to come out? It has already been granted planning permission, and planners seemingly took this into account.

Right to light is not taken into account by planning IIRC.

 

Just keep very good notes of everything as in the end it could end up at court where you neigbour can request compensation. If they have not allowed you to make appropriate measurement they will get less out of the judge one would hope.