PWA Can you build anything over a neighbour's property ?

[Spinny]

Seem to be getting different answers from different party wall surveyors which surprises me.

 

One says no, no projections however small are allowed, one says you cannot object to a small projection e.g. from a capping stone, one says a neighbour can install projecting flashing but 'you can knock it off if you want to'.

 

[JohnMo]

Ask yourself a similar question and you will have the answer.

 

If next door built on your land would be pissed about it?

 

My answer would be - yes. So why should you be building theirs? Even if it just a little bit. It isn't yours to build on.

[Mike]

Obviously not, but what's the problem that you're trying to solve?

[Redbeard]

I am guessing this refers to your previous thread about your neighbours having their son (?on an 'informal' basis) building an extension right up to the boundary between their land and yours. I think you mentioned the issue of roof oversails and/or gutters. 

 

It sounds as if a number of queries might raise their heads during the build, so in any further posts could you please cross-reference to any previous posts you have made on related subjects? It will help those responding to know the full context. Thanks.

[Spinny]

I am not the one building, my neighbour is. There are two party wall surveyors involved to help establish a PWA.

There are planning drawings only which are factually incorrect in certain regards and ambiguous in other respects. I have asked for construction or building regs drawings but none are being offered, so I have the impression the neighbour intends to build without drawings and without using a structural engineer.

From what I have seen in online forums it seems that building something over or above someone's land is trespass, and can be taken to court for redress, and should not be done. There are numerous side extensions in my locality which have all been built slightly away from the boundary so the eaves do not overhang.

However the neighbour's appointed PWS said when visiting the site - ''the outer wall will be at the boundary and have a capping at the top but you can knock it off if you want to''

This makes no sense to me given that PWS are supposed to be independent, surely he should be telling the neighbour they have no right to trespass on my property in any way and need to allow some room on their side for whatever style of eaves/fascia/capping they may end up building - on the planning drawings it appears to be a fascia board - now being illustrated on a drawing by the PWS as a thin capping - but there is no specification or definition. The build is to be done by the neighbours family member and it seems I am to have no real idea of what roof edging will be used. Obviously once the wall has been built the builder might decide to create any type of roof edge they choose projecting out and claim this is 'the only way to build it' or whatever. I might presumably take legal action at that point but my expectations are that a PWA should be definitively resolving such questions at the outset for everyone's obvious benefit.

My own PWA's boss has said 'a capping stone is allowed to project over your land'.

 

So what nonsense is going on here, and what are PWS doing in not adhering to the law ?!

[G and J]

Hi there, am I right i  thinking that you are currently undertaking a build? If so, is it on this plot, and how were relationships with this neighbour throughout or are you building on another plot where you can reference how you have managed neighbourly relationships/boundaries etc?

[Tetrarch]

From the information you have provided it would appear that they are going to install a parapet wall. They could use concrete stones, porcelain tiles, or some kind of capping like aluminium or zinc. Any of these would likely have a TINY overlap into your airspace.

 

I would seriously consider how you are going to live with this and your neighbour after it is built. There is no way that you can specify how well (or badly) the final wall will be finished. There is nothing you can do to ensure the aesthetic finish of the wall. Furthermore, you cannot finish the wall yourself - not even paint - without permission.

 

In my opinion I would play the long game. Make it easy for them to access your land on the condition that the quality of the external wall is good, as you will have to live with it - not your neighbour. Consider what finish you would prefer and get written permission to paint/render it as a condition of easy access.

 

The ease of access is important as you want their bricklayers to make as good a job of it as possible

 

Regards

 

Tet

[Spinny]

[edited in the following quote from your previous post and deleted that post - mods]

 

6 hours ago, G and J said:

Hi there, am I right i  thinking that you are currently undertaking a build? If so, is it on this plot, and how were relationships with this neighbour throughout or are you building on another plot where you can reference how you have managed neighbourly relationships/boundaries etc?

 

Yes I have my own build unfortunately still ongoing which I hope to complete this year on our property next door to the neighbour. I had a woeful experience with a builder and now having to complete by bringing in trades myself. Just a rear extension with a partial side element all stopping well short of the boundary to provide a side walkway between front and back gardens. Architect design, planning permission, structural engineer, quantity surveyor.

 

We had different neighbours when our work started and very good relations. New neighbours bought and moved in about 9 months after our work started. Also good relations with the new neighbours chatting over the fence, giving them local info, they gave us beans, we gave them stuff. No complaints from the neighbours at any point, no complaints from us as they did their own refurbishment work. After a while they mentioned they might decide to do something at the side. Asked us at one point whether we spoke to neighbours when planning ours - said yes we did, even adjusted our design in response to their comments - told them planning and architects always recommend talking to neighbours.

 

Some months later we get a planning notification in the post. Neighbours have submitted plans to build right out to the boundary and 1 and a bit storey high, flat roof. They submitted their application just before Xmas tricky-dicky style so we didn't even get any notification until half the response period was over. No attempt to discuss with us at all. We hurriedly put in a letter of objection given their plans broke all previous planning precedents. Unexpectedly their plans got approval. Invited them round to show them the impact on us and try to discuss aspects - amicable but oddly dismissive. Then receive full set of party wall notices from a PWS they have appointed.

 

It is pretty obvious - work at a boundary unavoidably needs some communication and discussion - it is a shared boundary in the deeds. I and a previous neighbour put the current fence up together 20 years ago amicably sharing the work and costs.

 

They certainly appear to be railroading us and mushrooming us, so no trust on our side anymore. Perfectly obvious and reasonable questions are just going unanswered and avoided.

[Spinny]

1 hour ago, Tetrarch said:

Make it easy for them to access your land on the condition that the quality of the external wall is good, as you will have to live with it - not your neighbour. Consider what finish you would prefer and get written permission to paint/render it as a condition of easy access.

 

There is no discussion like this. Their PWS said I have no right to know anything about what they are doing. They are dictating to me, that's it. Railroad and mushroom. Apparently my PWS is 'junior' and 'inexperienced' and currently seems unable to stand up or assert anything.

[Temp]

My understanding is that officially the only thing you are allowed to build on a neighbours land are foundations. I believe they can project under a neighbours land slightly.

 

Overhangs are normally considered a trespass. However the courts don't take kindly to people going to court over a minor trespass. I've heard in some cases  they allow the trespass to continue and award you nominal damages instead. That could be very little.

[Spinny]

Got some advice today of:

Foundations can project under a neighbours land if that is the only way of building the wall. However it is pretty much never technically necessary to have a projecting foundation so should almost never be included in a PWA.

 

A minor roof projection can be proposed such as the edge of a capping stone etc, but never a significant eaves projection. This capping could be removed if the property owner ever wanted to build against the wall themselves. However when challenged that this must be illegal, agreed that even a small projecting capping is trespass and therefore not legal. So only setting back the wall from the boundary by the depth of the projection can resolve this. After 20 years any projection over neighbours land would give rights through easement (not clear but potentially the neighbour might possibly end up owning the land underneath the projection I guess ?).

Edited Wednesday at 20:49 by Spinny

[Spinny]

1 hour ago, Temp said:

However the courts don't take kindly to people going to court over a minor trespass. I've heard in some cases  they allow the trespass to continue and award you nominal damages instead. That could be very little.

This may be the case, but presumably a PWA which includes a projection, however small, is breaking the law. So should never be 'awarded'. 

 

Would be good to hear from anyone that has been through the PWA process ? Anyone ?

[Mike]

So AIUI it, yes, unless there is some provision in the deeds to the contrary, then building over the boundary would be trespass, and it could lead to a permanent right being acquired over time. If such encroachments was trivial then I imagine that the courts may take a take a dim view of any action you may take, so the time to take action would be now, before building starts. You probably need to employ your own PWS to represent you, in view of the circumstances you've outlined above.

 

However, building close to the boundary with tiny gaps between properties causes access problems for future repair and maintenance, and often looks silly. If that may happen, then a better solution would often be to allow your neighbour to build right on the boundary, in exchange for the right to turn that wall into a party wall at a later date should you (or a future owner) wish to infill against it.

 

[Spinny]

7 hours ago, Mike said:

in exchange for the right to turn that wall into a party wall at a later date

Thanks Mike - can I ask have you ever been through the party wall process with party wall surveyors(PWS) ?

I ask because as explained to me there is no horse trading by owners, the process is like a court judgement made by the two appointed PWS and issued to the two owners as a judgement called an 'award'. The two PWS decide between themselves what to put in the award and you don't get to see any prior draft to comment on or make suggestions like yours. It is handed down.

Unfortunately the PWS I had to hurriedly appoint appears to be a lot younger and less experienced than the neighbours (which they obviously chose at their leisure) and it turns out you can't change your mind or sack them.

IMO the whole thing seems very odd given the aim is supposed to be to achieve what is somewhat euphemistically called a PW 'agreement'.

 

Is there anyone here with direct experience that has been through the full process ?

[Mike]

2 hours ago, Spinny said:

Thanks Mike - can I ask have you ever been through the party wall process

The last time I negotiated a party wall issue (along the lines I suggested) was before the Act came into force.

 

Have just taken a look online and it does indeed seem tricky to change your PWS. In which case my first thoughts would be to send them a stiff letter, ideally from a solicitor, stating that their proposed solution fails to protect the integrity of your land, that they are therefore being negligent in their duties, and that they may wish to amend the proposal or resign their position to avoid the legal action against them.

 

Alternatively, if the alternative suggestion I proposed is of interest, talk to you neigbour and see if they would agree to it; if so, both instruct your PWSs accordingly.

 

 

 

 

[Temp]

On 14/05/2025 at 10:26, Spinny said:

the outer wall will be at the boundary and have a capping at the top

 

If that's the only overhang I would allow it. If you want to build your own extension you would build against their wall and fit a wider capping to cover both. 

 

If you insisted they move everything back a few inches it would be difficult to build your own extension close to the boundary without it looking naff. No easy way to seal the gap to prevent leaf debris collecting.

 

What mike said..

 

14 hours ago, Mike said:

However, building close to the boundary with tiny gaps between properties causes access problems for future repair and maintenance, and often looks silly. If that may happen, then a better solution would often be to allow your neighbour to build right on the boundary, in exchange for the right to turn that wall into a party wall at a later date should you (or a future owner) wish to infill against it.

[torre]

On 14/05/2025 at 10:26, Spinny said:

neighbour's appointed PWS said when visiting the site - ''the outer wall will be at the boundary and have a capping at the top but you can knock it off if you want to''

You could ask their PWS in writing/email to clarify their comments whether the wall will be at the boundary and its capping overhang, I suspect they'll be less flippant then.

 

On 14/05/2025 at 12:15, Spinny said:

Invited them round to show them the impact on us and try to discuss aspects - amicable but oddly dismissive

This at least is somewhat promising. Honestly I think it's worth trying this approach again.

 

You may want to read about this dispute and then have a chat with your neighbours whether it's in either of your interests to get into a formal dispute and court action over this.

Put aside your concerns about their son as the builder in favour of asking for a small compromise to set the wall back slightly to avoid a dispute that costs you both money and devalues both properties because you're in a formal dispute, regardless of who is in the right.

[Spinny]

5 hours ago, torre said:

You may want to read about this dispute

Thank you for all comments so far - still seem to be missing anyone that has actually been through the full PWA process.

 

To my mind this case is an excellent illustration of the problems. And the cause of these problems - well I'd say it is the planning authorities and the party wall act.

When the first extension was built in that photo something went wrong - planning permission to build on the boundary with overflying eaves should never have been permitted - it is against the law and a trespass. What are the planning authorities playing at !

Also what were the planning authorities playing at when the second extension was built. It looks as though the two eaves actually overlap and clash. Lord knows how you maintain that. Planning should never have been approved for those plans either.

Part of the problem, as with my neighbour, is that planning applications don't require any drawings of the proposed build which includes its relationship to the neighbouring property. Therefore you can submit plans which in isolation look ok, especially if, by accident or deliberate subterfuge, the architects planning drawings are inaccurate and ambiguous and include deliberate omissions. My neighbour got planning permission using drawings that show the slope of the land in the opposite direction to reality - quite possibly done to obfuscate the height difference with our property, and completely omit existing features like the fence. Yet apparently I cannot challenge - except by hugely costly court challenge - a decision made by a youngster with little experience and probably no experience of property ownership, at a pay rate of peanuts, put under enormous political pressure to get applications processed post haste, and based on likely deliberately false and manipulated plan drawings.

It is broken - every time you hear a politician moaning and scapegoating planning red tape and delays - remember what destroying planning ''red tape'' leads to, and that once stuff is built it is generally going to stand for 100's of years.

Edited Thursday at 20:38 by Spinny

[Spinny]

Building is expensive and there are far too many people allowed to build truly awful constructions. Our own extension included demolishing a previous single skin extension with a low ceiling built on the cheap in the 1980's that we had to tolerate for 30 years of cold and damp.

 

Unfortunately quite a few idiots fancy themselves as amateur architects, Dunning-Kruger applies.

[G and J]

47 minutes ago, Spinny said:

still seem to be missing anyone that has actually been through the full PWA process.

 

We gave you the detail of our PWA experience (necessary on both sides) in your post regarding insurance.

 

For us it was dealt with professionally and amicably and we were seeking agreement to demolish and rebuild all within a metre of the boundary.

[Spinny]

Yes, thanks G and J. I do appreciate that.

Unfortunately though I think the issues only get especially hard when someone is trying to build at the boundary itself. If the building is away from the boundary as yours is and indeed as our own is, then there is no overhang and no trespass problem and there is no possibility a neighbour might build against the new wall.

 

We live in a road of semi-detached houses. They have generous gardens of around 250+sqm at the back and similar size at the front. Clearly if people build side extensions right up to the boundary lines between each pair of semi's then all the properties become connected and become terraced, instantly devaluing them. In addition it looks horrendous aesthetically and completely changes the character of the road with gaps between the pair's of semi's being eliminated. In addition the ability to move anything between the front and back gardens without taking it through the house itself is lost. Council waste bins have to be kept in the front garden. It is very inconvenient and a key reason we didn't want to build to the boundary ourselves. Yet another factor is that the semi's in our road are not parallel, they are set out in an arc, each pair angled w.r.t. the next. So building out to the boundary creates another problem because the boundary lines are not parallel to the existing house's outer wall. (Would you believe our neighbours intend from their plans to build a non parallel wall along the boundary and to have rooms without 90 degree corners - that's is how mad their plan is).

 

The more I think about it, the more I understand why the several side extensions in the road are as they are - short of the boundary with lean to roofs that don't trespass. It is the only sensible way, and I also believe the only approach the planning authority has ever previously given approval for. Planning authority incompetence now has created huge problems for us.

 

While I am here, here are some of the 'features' of the neighbour's, no doubt design-it-yourself design - non-parallel walls, an internal window, a downstairs toilet moved to place it  against the internal party wall with their conjoined neighbour (nice, how are you going to ventilate that with no windows), building over an existing manhole cover, building over a gas supply pipe, removing all windows from the south side of their house, removing all access between their front and back gardens except through the house (access through the house requires climbing and descending around 5 steps every time, whilst the side access is currently a gently sloping level walk). Half the new floor area is to be a fancy bicycle store (yes up and down the steps with the bike every time). A flat roof with three small rooflights(they will enjoy climbing on the roof to clean those), steps up built forward of the building line and across the existing front door and new front facing side door damaging the 1930's aesthetic. They are in their 70's and one has bad knees. You honestly couldn't make it up. All passed by planning in the best interests of the next 100 years of occupants - not.

 

Yes they have the right to do as they wish as long as planning will pass it, but it is mad as mad Jack McMadman and that is a sorry fact.

Edited Thursday at 22:35 by Spinny

[ETC]

Hire a solicitor.