# Planning permission to demolish and rebuild exactly the same?



## Stoli123

Hi,

We are in the throws of a refurb. We have full planning permission for a one story kitchen extension to the rear of our edwardian building. It is not a protected structure but is in a conservation area.

The existing building has an L shape extension that was built with the house. We are taking out the lower half of that extension to make our kitchen. 
My question is can we demolish and rebuild the top part of that extension...exactly as is but with better insulation and getting around all the drop floors rise ceilings issues....without permission.

Help as steel order needs to go in!

Stoli123


----------



## priscilla

Hi

Planning law is open to interpetation and different local authorities take different attitudes, you would be better to talk to a planner in your local Co. Co. I believe in your case, you would need planning permission, as although you are replacing an existing structure, it will be considered  to be a new structure. I believe that in the planning regulations the exemption is for 40msq. but this is for all extensions to the dwelling. If you go ahead anyway ,the local authority could take enforcement action against you - if someone reports you or a planner is in the area and notices. You could in that case apply for retention but that can be refused and during the process of the retention application ,you would have to stop the work. 
I believe the best way for you is to arrange for a pre planning meeting and discuss it up front, then you will know exactly what to do and there will not be any nasty suprises during the work.

Best of Luck


----------



## DBK100

priscilla said:


> Hi
> 
> Planning law is open to interpetation and different local authorities take different attitudes, you would be better to talk to a planner in your local Co. Co. I believe in your case, you would need planning permission, as although you are replacing an existing structure, it will be considered  to be a new structure...



The relevant phrase used under the Planning Act & Regulations is "Development". All 'works' are considered to be 'Development' but those specifically listed as being Exempted Development under the Regulations are Exempt from the requirement to apply for planning permission.
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/planning/oftenasked.htm

The building of an extension entirely to the rear of a house which meets the various exemption parameters set out does not require a planning application. So if your extension rebuild is within the specific parameters of area, heights, garden space, window positions in relation to boundaries, etc. it is exempted.

If your work does not meet all of the exempted development parameters then it will require a planning application regardless of the fact that you are rebuilding. The very same principal applies if you want to demolish an existing house and rebuild the same. It is not classified as exempted development.

The 1st floor will need to be less than 12Sqm / 20Sqm (terrace, semi / detached), meet criteria on eaves / wall height, have any windows facing a boundary more than 11m from that boundary, have any external wall a minimum distance of 2m from the boundary, to qualify as exempted development.

You should consult your local planning department if you are in any doubt or refer to the full list of exempted works.

DBK100
http://www.mesh.ie


----------



## threebedsemi

Demolition of a 'habitable' house constitutes development, and thus requires planning permission. 
Building a house constitutes development, and thus requires planning permission.


----------



## threebedsemi

Sorry, didnt read the full initial query. The only way to be sure is to request a declaration from the Planning Authority. This unfortunately takes four weeks.


----------



## onq

Stoli123 said:


> Hi,
> 
> We are in the throws of a refurb. We have full planning permission for a one story kitchen extension to the rear of our edwardian building. It is not a protected structure but is in a conservation area.
> 
> The existing building has an L shape extension that was built with the house. We are taking out the lower half of that extension to make our kitchen.
> My question is can we demolish and rebuild the top part of that extension...exactly as is but with better insulation and getting around all the drop floors rise ceilings issues....without permission.
> 
> Help as steel order needs to go in!
> 
> Stoli123



Stoli123,

Without knowing the local authority of the district we cannot assess the likely restrictions inherent in a particular ACA - ACA's may be wide ranging or quite limited:

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Heritage/ArchitecturalHeritage/FileDownLoad,2204,en.pdf

This means that any advice you get here, including mine, is of limited relevance.

However this much is obvious.
Someone has made an application on your behalf in an ACA for a reason.
It is highly unlikely that you can demolish and rebuild a structure without permission in an ACA, since you need permission for this anywhere else.

Only demolitions which are necessary and consequential part of exempted development extensions do not need permission.
Demolition of a habitable house or part of a habitable house - other than those described above - is not considered exempted development.

Even where permission has been granted, demolition must be limited to what is reasonably required to give effect to it.
If you unwisely neglected to include wholesale demolition and rebuilding in your permission, you are bound by what you have permission for.

Even if the planner were disposed to be lenient or look the other way, your permission most likely has as part of Condition No. 1 the wording "...the development shall be carried out in its entirety in accordance with the plans and particulars lodged."

You could not do that if the original permission showed the top of the return retained and you demolished it.
If you went ahead and demolished thinking you would get retention permission you could be running a serious risk.
Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Co Co last year put in place a policy of requiring all applicants to include a schedule of demolitions with applications.
This relatively onerous requirement followe on the near total demolition of a semi-detached house following and application to extended it circa 18 months ago.
The reasons given were, I understand, broadly similar to yours- it would be a "better job" - it certainly was a longer job!

Your steel order, and the reason why you left putting this question so late, are neither here nor there - this is a matter of planning law, pure and simple.
My best advice is that you should seek professional advice and consult your planning officer as I think you'll need planning permission for what you suggest.
I'm sorry I cannot be more helpful, but this issue was entirely foreseeable and your architect [assuming retained one] should have advised you on this matter.

FWIW

ONQ.

[broken link removed]


----------



## DBK100

I missed in my previous post that you had your PP for the ground floor works.

Do you remember the RTE programme last year where a well known hotelier was extending and renovating an existing house as his retirement home? I think it was in Kinsale.
They had permission to fully gut the original house and leave only the external walls standing, then refurbish and extend to form a courtyard house.
During the course of the build it was decided that it would be best to demolish the remaining original walls as well and rebuild them exactly as they were previously (to be structurally sound with new foundations and improved insulation).

The job was halted by the enforcement department and nothing happened on site for at least 5 months while a new PP was sought. Permission was granted in the end - the whole process didn't reflect too well on the architect involved.

Five months hanging around, out of your house, with a contracted builder claiming for loss and expense would not be good for anyone's peace of mind, or pocket.

DBK100
http://www.mesh.ie


----------



## pansyflower

http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1066570

Designs for Life, broadcast last night on RTE 1


----------



## onq

The architect in question seemed to think the planning matter was "paperwork".

Never fails to amaze me when even good designers cannot seem to grasp the implications fo planning law - and I thought Rory Murphy's design work was excellent.

Its easy to make incorrect assumptions in relation to exempted development.

Check once, check twice - and then check again, is the only strategy.

Back to the subject matter and I note that regardless of teh issue of demolition and rebuilding the ACA might preclude availiing of the exempted development Schedule at all.

It depends on what specific terms the ACA sets for development within its functional area.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]


----------



## Stoli123

Thank you all for your very full responses. They were a great help and we easily made our decision from them.
We decided not to demolish and put tell tails on the upper part of the extension so we would know if it became unsafe.

Stoli123


----------



## onq

Stoli123 said:


> Thank you all for your very full responses. They were a great help and we easily made our decision from them.
> We decided not to demolish and put tell tails on the upper part of the extension so we would know if it became unsafe.
> 
> Stoli123



Who is this "we" Stoli123? You and the builder?

Who is currently advising you on structures - do you have an engineer?

If you don't, you need to appoint one immediately to advise on this work.

You need a proper method statement for the propping and demolition and building work from your engineer.

All the contractors involved need to perform a safety risk assessment in relation to this work and their roles in it.

At a bare minimum you need to fully prop and brace the superstructure, not stick Demec gauges on it!


[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent persons should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
My best advice is that you should retain a competent building professional to advise you on these matters.


----------



## DBK100

onq said:


> Stoli123,
> 
> 
> Only demolitions which are necessary and consequential part of exempted development extensions do not need permission.
> Demolition of a habitable house or part of a habitable house - other than those described above - is not considered exempted development.
> 
> Even where permission has been granted, demolition must be limited to what is reasonably required to give effect to it.
> If you unwisely neglected to include wholesale demolition and rebuilding in your permission, you are bound by what you have permission for.
> 
> 
> FWIW
> 
> ONQ.
> 
> [broken link removed]





It is *very important* to be aware of the Limitation to Exempted Development for extensions to dwellings as set out in SI 235 of 2008.

Class 50 has been amended to now explicitly state that in relation to
(b) The demolition of part of a habitable house in connection with the provision of an extension or porch in accordance with Class 1 or 7, respectively, of this Part of prescribed Schedule or in accordance with a permission for an extension or porch under the Act.
that
*1. No such building or buildings shall abut another building in separate ownership.*

If you are intending to build an extension as exempted development, it WILL REQUIRE PLANNING PERMISSION if any structure to be demolished abuts a neighbouring property.

DBK100
http://www.mesh.ie


----------



## onq

+1 What Doc has posted.

Here is a link to it: [broken link removed]

There is one property to the south of Glasthule near Dun Laoghaire and an entire half return was demolished and left unbuilt in January February, with the inclement weather.

I wasn't watching when this work was starting so I'm not certain if there was a planning permission associated with it, but its a case in point.

Although entirely to the rear of the property if was definitely abutting because it shared a ridge and party wall.

I wish someone would get a consolidated version of the legislation together or post a link.

We've had new regulations for all bar two years of the noughties.

FWIW

ONQ.


----------



## onq

DBK100 said:


> It is *very important* to be aware of the Limitation to Exempted Development for extensions to dwellings as set out in SI 235 of 2008.
> 
> Class 50 has been amended to now explicitly state that in relation to
> (b) The demolition of part of a habitable house in connection with the provision of an extension or porch in accordance with Class 1 or 7, respectively, of this Part of prescribed Schedule or in accordance with a permission for an extension or porch under the Act.
> that
> *1. No such building or buildings shall abut another building in separate ownership.*
> 
> If you are intending to build an extension as exempted development, it WILL REQUIRE PLANNING PERMISSION if any structure to be demolished abuts a neighbouring property.
> 
> DBK100
> http://www.mesh.ie



DBK100,

This followed on from the previous provision IIRC, that you couldn't demolish a structure that was a habitable house, part of a habitable house, or directly abutted a habitable house.

Taken literally, this means you couldn't knock a garage, to build a new extension assuming that the back end of same was a utility room.

Is that your understanding of it also?

This seems to be a back door means of bringing in party wall legislation.



The reason I ask is that a neighbour has recently received a referal in relation to extending a house to the rear.

Although it didn't state it explicitly, I am fairly certain this will involve partial demolition of the utility and garage, at the very least a re-roofing.

And of course, the definition of the term "partial" opens a multitude - partial can mean knocking and propping to open a wider hole between the old and the new.

I'd appreciate your comments on this.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon    as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be    taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in    Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at    hand.


----------



## DBK100

ONQ,

SI 235 of 2008, Class 50 gives the relevant limitation to the exemption.
See: www.environ.ie/en/Legislation/.../FileDownLoad,18013,en.pdf
(Page 4).

The descriptions of what the exemptions are use the words:
The demolition of a building, or buildings within the curtilage of - (i) a house...
and
The demolition of part of a habitable house in connection with the provision of an extension...

The Limitation / Condition in the second column being that 
"No such building or buildings [to be demolished] shall abut on another building in separate ownership.

So, is a garage a part of a habitable house? When it is attached to the house, and additionally, attached to the neighbouring house, the answer could very well be yes.
One can assume that this limitation was introduced to provide the adjoining owner with a right to comment or object to the demolition of a structure attached to his/her property. This is a very reasonable thing that closes a previous hole in the exempted development regulations.

With respect to 'demolition' versus 'partial demolition':
The amendment's use of only the word 'demolition' and not the words 'partial demolition' was most likely a conscious decision. The legal eagles who draft these regulations tend to be very precise with words.
My understanding would therefore be that 'demolition' means the full demolition of a structure or full demolition of a part of a house, i.e. the full demolition of a garage or lean-too which form part of a house.
Partial demolition in my opinion is not what is mean't here. I think the words partial demolition would have been employed in the regulation. 
I would therefore think it acceptable to remove an element of a structure which abutted another property, and renew or replace it, without that work being considered as demolition as stated in the regulation.

If this were not the case, we would be into very grey territory. If one neighbour wanted to renew slates on his lean-too, is he carrying out a temporary demolition which abuts his neighbour's roof? Where would the line be drawn? If you remove the felt, the joists..? When does partial become full demolition?

I'm open to hearing other's views on this.

By the way, it seems that some of the planning dept. staff in Dublin C.C. are entirely unaware of this amendment. We were told this morning that we didn't need planning permission to demolish a lean-too abutting a neighbour's.

Beware: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Even when that ignorance comes from the quasi-judicial body charged with enforcing that law!

DBK100
http://www.mesh.ie


----------



## DBK100

And on Party Walls:

*The  Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009* 

 http://www.hayes-solicitors.ie/news%5CEveryoneNeedsGoodNeighbours.htm

 The  Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009has introduced  specific provisions dealing with party structures. It came in to force  on 1 December 2009. If you own a property or  land you can carry out works to the party structure in order to:
 ·        comply with  a notice or order served on you, 
 ·        to carry  out development which is exempted development or development for which  planning permission has been granted, 
 ·        to preserve  a party structure, 
 ·        to carry  out other works which will not cause substantial damage or inconvenience  to your neighbour.  


http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=130655


----------



## onq

DBK100,

I'm most impressed!

Where were you advised about the Land Conveyancing and Law Reform Act 2009.

I had been keeping my eye on it over the past year or so because I knew there were recommendations about to be enacted, but the run up to Christmas last year and subsequently were a bit of a horror story for us personally and professionally so I got distracted - easy to do.

Back to the Act and its a bit fascist, in that it appears to permit trespass to carry out works that have not been agreed to, but maybe that's my jaundiced mis-reading of it.

I would appreciate comments on this one and perhaps we should make a key post on this forum - even if that might double the one on the Law forum.

Have to think about that, but my concern is to centralise a planning and planning law resource and this goes to the heart of planning law.

You can see several discussions both here [this forum and the law forum] and others about party wall issues.

This information should be widely dispersed.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon    as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be    taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in    Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at    hand.


----------



## onq

DBK100 said:


> ONQ,
> 
> SI 235 of 2008, Class 50 gives the relevant limitation to the exemption.
> See: www.environ.ie/en/Legislation/.../FileDownLoad,18013,en.pdf
> (Page 4).
> 
> The descriptions of what the exemptions are use the words:
> The demolition of a building, or buildings within the curtilage of - (i) a house...
> and
> The demolition of part of a habitable house in connection with the provision of an extension...
> 
> The Limitation / Condition in the second column being that
> "No such building or buildings [to be demolished] shall abut on another building in separate ownership.
> 
> So, is a garage a part of a habitable house? When it is attached to the house, and additionally, attached to the neighbouring house, the answer could very well be yes.
> One can assume that this limitation was introduced to provide the adjoining owner with a right to comment or object to the demolition of a structure attached to his/her property. This is a very reasonable thing that closes a previous hole in the exempted development regulations.
> 
> With respect to 'demolition' versus 'partial demolition':
> The amendment's use of only the word 'demolition' and not the words 'partial demolition' was most likely a conscious decision. The legal eagles who draft these regulations tend to be very precise with words.
> My understanding would therefore be that 'demolition' means the full demolition of a structure or full demolition of a part of a house, i.e. the full demolition of a garage or lean-too which form part of a house.
> Partial demolition in my opinion is not what is mean't here. I think the words partial demolition would have been employed in the regulation.
> I would therefore think it acceptable to remove an element of a structure which abutted another property, and renew or replace it, without that work being considered as demolition as stated in the regulation.
> 
> If this were not the case, we would be into very grey territory. If one neighbour wanted to renew slates on his lean-too, is he carrying out a temporary demolition which abuts his neighbour's roof? Where would the line be drawn? If you remove the felt, the joists..? When does partial become full demolition?
> 
> I'm open to hearing other's views on this.
> 
> By the way, it seems that some of the planning dept. staff in Dublin C.C. are entirely unaware of this amendment. We were told this morning that we didn't need planning permission to demolish a lean-too abutting a neighbour's.
> 
> Beware: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Even when that ignorance comes from the quasi-judicial body charged with enforcing that law!
> 
> DBK100
> http://www.mesh.ie




Just for the benefit of others reading my comments, I intend that this exchange should really be seen as a debate teasing out the meanings of the law, its not intended to be adversarial in any regard and I know DBK100 shares this attitude - anyone please feel free to join in.

That having been said, I think that the legislators here can sometimes be less that stellar based on personal experience and I don't see a huge distrinction between "partial demolition of..." and "demolition of part of..." a habitable house.

I think this regulation infringes on several aspects of Section 4 1 H of the Act, and indeed may contradict the Class 1-7 exempted development regulations, putting them all in the grey area you rightly fear.

I think this will take a test case to determine and even then by its nature this will tend to relate to particular circumstances and not be general.

"Here's another fine mess you've got me into..."



ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon    as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be    taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in    Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at    hand.


----------



## DBK100

onq said:


> DBK100,
> Back to the Act and its a bit fascist, in that it appears to permit trespass to carry out works that have not been agreed to, but maybe that's my jaundiced mis-reading of it.
> 
> I would appreciate comments on this one and perhaps we should make a key post on this forum - even if that might double the one on the Law forum.
> 
> Have to think about that, but my concern is to centralise a planning and planning law resource and this goes to the heart of planning law.
> 
> You can see several discussions both here [this forum and the law forum] and others about party wall issues.
> 
> This information should be widely dispersed.
> 
> ONQ.




I agree, ONQ,
The new Land Conveyancing and Law Reform Act 2009 seems like a bizarre piece of legislation.

The following information is from http://www.hayes-solicitors.ie/news\EveryoneNeedsGoodNeighbours.htm
(My underlining)

_"if you own a property or land you can carry out works to a party structure in order to comply with a notice or order served on you, to carry out development which is exempted development or development for which planning permission has been granted, to preserve a party structure or to carry out other works which will not cause substantial damage or inconvenience to your neighbour."_

_"What exactly is a party structure? It means any arch, ceiling, ditch, fence, floor, hedge, partition, shrub, tree, wall or other structure which divides properties. It includes structures which are on your neighbour’s property or those which straddle the boundary line. “Works” are also widely defined and include amongst other things maintaining, repairing, replacing, strengthening, taking down, cutting hedges and trees, clearing ditches and carrying out inspections and drawing up plans."

"The new laws however do not give you the absolute right to do whatever you want. If you cause damage when you are carrying out the works you must make good this damage or reimburse your neighbour in order to allow them to do so. You must also pay your neighbour the reasonable costs of them obtaining professional advice to advise them on the consequences of the works which you propose carrying out along with reasonable compensation for the inconvenience caused by the works. You should bear in mind that if the works which you are carrying out will be of benefit to your neighbour you may in certain cases be able to claim a contribution from them. If you fail to make good the damage within a reasonable time, you fail to reimburse costs or your neighbour fails to meet your claim for contribution then an application can be made to court."

"If you simply cannot agree with your neighbour then you can apply to court for an order authorising the carrying out of the works and this is called a “Works Order”. The court can order the carrying out of the works on such conditions as it thinks is necessary. These conditions may be such as to allow you to enter on to your neighbours land to carry out the works and the order may require you to either indemnify your neighbour for any damage you may cause or give security to your neighbours."_

It seems bizarre because of the definitions of a "Party Structure", which can apparently now be entirely on your neighbour's property.

To my mind a wall, fence, hedge or other physical element dividing property, which is entirely on owner A's land, is his property.
It does form a 'boundary' between the properties, but it is not (was not) a 'Party Structure'. Owner A owns it and maintains it. Owner B's property finishes at the surface of that structure which faces his property.

The new legislation potentially gives rise to many tricky situations:
- A dilapidated dry-stone wall has separated two gardens for many years. Property deeds state the wall is entirely A's property and sits entirely on his property. 'A' now decides the time is right to have the wall repaired and gets quotes for €3,000. Can he now legitimately seek a contribution from owner B - for the benefit he will receive?
- A 'Boundary Wall' separating two gardens is owned by 'A' (again deeds are clear). Owner B interprets from the new Act that the wall between his and A's gardens is now a 'Party Wall'. He now wishes to maximise the interior space in his planned rear extension by building right up to the existing wall. This will require the temporary demolition of part of the garden wall to facilitate the new foundations for his extension. He feels confident that he can demolish the section of the garden wall (previously A's) to build, as he has 'Planning Permission' and he will make good the damage when he is finished, six months later... He understands from the Act that he can now do this without 'A's' permission.

In terms of "you can apply to court for an order authorising the carrying out of the works and this is called a “Works Order”."
This is a rather meaningless statement for most of us.
Recourse to the courts is expensive and to most right-minded people, to be avoided at all costs. So as before, it will be a last resort only. 
Neighbour B will continue to use his 'knowledge' to assert his rights to carry out whatever works he wishes, while Neighbour A will continue to be exasperated by a neighbour who will not listen to facts or reason. The police will continue to play no role in this civil dispute (unless violence or harassment bubbles over), and no other state body can or will provide guidance, opinion or mediation.
So the worse case scenarios will end up back in court and one or other neighbour will have had their enjoyment of their home destroyed.

Of course it will have to be these court cases that actually decide what this new legislation means in practice. Who knows what decisions will be made. 
In the mean time it might seem to be a case of _"As you were then"._

Here is a link to a page outlining the definitions of 'Boundary Wall', 'Party Wall', 'Party Structure' as set out under the UK "Party Wall Act'.
[broken link removed]
Clarity- is a word that immediately springs to mind.
Confusion- is what is likely to result from our new Act.

Why didn't they just copy the UK law again? - They did it for all of the  Building Regulations...

We see boundary issues cropping up between neighbours again and again. Usually, but not always when an extension is being planned or  constructed. Myself & my partner have personal experience of the stress caused by such disputes too. 
There are ways to resolve these issues amicably, but one (or both) parties must acknowledge that *a positive result is not about 'Winning the Battle'.*


DBK100
http://www.mesh.ie


----------



## onq

Thanks for that summary and worked example DBK100.

This reflects my own understanding of events as they may transpire.

--------------------------------

Having said that, I know of two instances where the reverse actually occurred.

A neightbour with a south facing back garden tried to trim the dreaded bush which formed one of the boundaries a 12-16ft [4-5.3M] high Lelandii - she was prevented by the neighbour, a person who obviously valued privacy to the detriment of anothers light and amenity. Three were comments in the press in the mid noughties about Dick Roche thinking of creating a new law limiting bushes on the boundary to 8ft[2.4M] to avoid problems with loss of light and amenity - nothing came of these AFAICR.

A neighbour planted a tree in the front garden at or on the boudnary, or it grew across it and wanted to cut it down as it had become overgrown. She was prevented from doing so by the neighbour via solicitors letter and was put to great expense getting professionals to survey and advise on the matter before the tree was removed.

--------------------------------

I have seen the flip side also.

A neighbour entered into an adjoining front garden while the neighbour was on holiday and removed a bush which had been lovingly tended by an amateur for years - this was before this new law came out, but what recompense could they have received for this act of vandalism without an expensive legal action? The bush was removed, it is though to improve a view from the front garden to improve the potential sale price - this was before 2008 IIRC.

--------------------------------

Finally a potential upside for one neighbour.

High evergreen fir trees block light and amenity all along a neighbours rear boundary, which trees are wholly in a neighbouring garden, with the neighbour away and the house rented nearly all the time - this legislation might enable a resolution for them if they decided to push for it, but they are a quiet family, and would not wish to impinge or cause trouble with their neighbours.

--------------------------------

While its an ill wind that blows no-one any good DBK100, the mental and emotional damage that's going to be done to people who have looked after their plantings along a timber fence for years - when its removed and replaced with a rendered and capped block wall by their yuppie neighbours - will only be exceended when they get half the bill for the work! This is a totally inequitable Act that appears to invite trespass and could force people on limited means into bankruptcy.

While it may have been intended to allow persons unknown to develop their land within reason and avoid all the setting back wastefulness of not building on the boundary, it appears to throw the doors open wide for abusers of other people's property rights.



 Is this Act pandering to small builders and aggressive neighbours?
 Does this Act need to be amended to require consent to the works from an  affected party?
 Does it require to include specific mention of mediation ADR or  arbitration to be required to settle matters - as opposed to taking a  costly court action?
 
If you agree I'll approach the Administrator about making this a key post and re-naming the thread to suit - or else extracting say, posts #12 - #20 inclusive and putting them into a new thread.
Post here, PM or e-mail me if you don't agree or have a better suggestion - same for anyone else - this needs to be "out there" for homeowners to know about.



ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon    as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be    taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in    Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at    hand.


----------



## DBK100

I am in agreement for a Sticky thread that would deal with Party Wall & Boundary Issues. 
They occur so frequently from both sides - when party A wants to extend for example and does not know what they can or can't do, or when party B discovers for example that A plans to extend and does not know what his rights are (or indeed maybe thinks he knows them all).

Such a thread would be a very useful repository for knowledge based on legislation and also for knowledge based on experience. It should definitely not be a place for griping and blame however.
 With respect to the "law",  I have experience of three different solicitors giving very differing opinions on the one case. One person's 'professional opinion' can be substantially different to another's 'professional opinion'. The new legislation would seem to hold plenty of potential to nurture those differences.
 Case law decisions determined in court unfortunately look like the costly way those differences will be resolved. 
 Not at all good for the average homeowner!

DBK100


----------



## onq

Exactly DBK100.

I was talking to my solicitor only this afternoon and pointed out what amounts to the legalised trespass arising from the new Act and he confessed he had known about the Act in relation to some matters he deals with, but not that particular section.

He seemed to think much as we do when I described my understanding of it to him, but as you say, legal opinion differs and we await a test case to sort it out.

In the meantime thanks for your support and I will mention this to the administrator soonest.

ONQ.


----------



## Angelblue1978

Coming late to this discussion. Quick question. Is planning permission required to demolish a lean-to against a party wall. Can't decide whether the statutory instrument mentioning Class 50 or the LCLRA takes precedence. Thanks for any advice.


----------



## terrysgirl33

Angelblue1978 said:


> Coming late to this discussion. Quick question. Is planning permission required to demolish a lean-to against a party wall. Can't decide whether the statutory instrument mentioning Class 50 or the LCLRA takes precedence. Thanks for any advice.


As this thread hasn't been posted on since 2010, you may want to start your own thread.


----------

