Seems like the next weekend d-i-y project for you is clear, Huge: you
need to camoflauge the house, and put up a lightweight similacrum 800
yards away, and move the decoy house another 400 yards each weekend.
Eventually you'll have the weekend wannabe pilots flying out to sea
(and maybe running out of fuel ;-)
Should keep you busy for a few days...
Stefek Zaba wrote
| Seems like the next weekend d-i-y project for you is clear, Huge:
| you need to camoflauge the house, and put up a lightweight
| similacrum 800 yards away, and move the decoy house another 400
| yards each weekend.
| Eventually you'll have the weekend wannabe pilots flying out to
| sea (and maybe running out of fuel ;-)
| Should keep you busy for a few days...
Should really confuse the council too when they look at the aerial
photographs to spot new building work without planning permission.
Pah, that's nothing. We get overflown from RAF Odiham, and they use the
field at the back of the house to practice setting down and taking off.
When I was at work one day my wife complained to Odiham that a Chinook
pilot had been too close to the house and got the usual guff that he
couldnt' have been, strict separation rules, highly repsonsible people,
Then she gave them the name of the man standing in the door of the
Chinook which she had read off his uniform.
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
Except the CAA will not accept uncorroborated complaints, so if you live
in a the middle of a field and regularly get used as a waypoint by
light aircraft flying well below 500ft, you're screwed.
Don't ask me how I know, unless you want to hear a lot of foul language.
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
| Can I charge BAA for entering the airspace I own above my house ;-)
Much better to sort these things out amicably. A friendly note to the pilot
saying "please do not fly here again or I'll let your tyres down" left under
the windscreen wiper should do it.
| "Christian McArdle"
| > > Much better to sort these things out amicably. A friendly note
| > > to the pilot saying "please do not fly here again or I'll let
| > > your tyres down" left under the windscreen wiper should do it.
| > Many planes don't have windscreen wipers.
So what do you think Post-It(tm) Notes were invented for?
I think that this is the post the OP was referring to:
"Boundaries can be a problem but with the new legislation, you can build
right up to the edge and build footings on your neighbours side without
his permission. This is to prevent the stupid 6" gaps appearing between
extensions. He can object and appeal, but will be stopped from
interfering if you are granted permission."
I didn't see the original thread either. But footings projecting across a
boundary are indeed permissible under the Party Wall etc Act 1996. Section 1(6)
states: "Where the Building Owner builds a wall wholly on his own land ......he
shall have the right .........to place below the level of the land of the
adjoining owner such projecting footings or foundations as are necessary for the
construction of the wall."
Section 2(2)(g) of the same Act states, "A Building Owner shall have the right
to cut away.....any footing....... or other projection on or over the land of
the Building Owner in order to erect, raise or underpin any such wall or for any
So, in principle you (as the person carrying out the work) have the right to
extend footings over the boundary if it is "necessary", and also to cut off your
neighbour's projecting footings on your land. Each case would be considered on
its merits by the Party Wall Surveyors acting for both sides, but the general
principles are that if you are building against an existing building you are
responsible for maintaining its stability and you must not increase the load on
its foundations. If your proposed foundations involve cutting off a projection
or undermine the existing building then you will probably need to underpin it.
Reinforced concrete foundations are not covered by these Clauses, and the
neighbour's written permission is needed in all cases.
I don't know about the legal aspects and what is allowed and who pays for
what. However, from a technical point of view, the original foundation would
need underpinning and extending to allow the extra weight.
Preferably not without the express agreement of the adjoining owner,
legalities notwithstanding (when you sell you have to declare whether
you have had disputes with neighbours)
Where extensions to semi-d's were concerned, in my BCO days we used to
suggest to people that they talk to their neighbour and get their
agreement (should be done by a solicitor, but exchange of letters at
least) to build the extension flank wall on the line of the party wall
(i.e straddling the boundary): first owner pays; in return for agreeing
the second user can use the wall if they subsequently decide to extend.
Both get an extra 100mm of internal space and no nasty gap. If you're
doing this with a flat roof, best to extend up as a parapet along the
boundary so owner 2 can do his stuff without disturbing your roof.
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.