Gap between houses?

[GB]

Does this 4" gap make any sense at all? Surely moisture will gt in and it will be impossible to repair?

[Dave Liquorice]

It makes the new place detached and avoids party wall stuff...

There must be an awful lot more behind this story than is in that article. Did none of the now objecting neighbours object at the planning stage? Particlarly the one with the now obscured gable end window.

[John Williamson]

Never mind the moisture getting in now. That should be fine as long as the brickwork is up to scratch. The real fun's going to start when *any* of the houses get old enough to need repointing. I'm surprised they got either planning permission or building control approval, as even inspecting the end walls properly would be impossible.

After looking at the pictures of the adjoining houses before the new one was built, I'd say the repointing problem isn't all that far away, either, and it doesn't seem to have been done as part of the works, looking at the visible corners.

[SteveW]

>>>> Never mind the moisture getting in now. That should be fine as long as

This is quite normal. New estates are built with gaps too small for any access.

Our next-door neighbours applied for planning permission for an extension (in the end, they changed to a smaller one) that would have been very close to, but not up to, our border. The council planners said nothing about the small gap, however we wrote and suggested that it would be better built right to the border, allowing us to do the same later and avoiding this very problem.

SteveW

[sm_jamieson]

Since it appeared to be semis each side, I expect they did not want to be made into a terrace. However, the article I read said the residents were "shocked" or something when they "found out". Surely they would have seen it being built ? Or course the new house would be worth more as a detached, and I would have thought developers would build "detached" whenever possible.

Also, the party wall act would have been relevant if the foundations were deeper than the ones either side, which is quite likely. I suppose they could have avoided this by building on some type of slab.

Simon.

[Brian Gaff]

Since there was a big discussion about a 1 foot gap some years ago when a neighbour built an extension, I'd have thought this one was a nono, unless you have some kind of space alien builders aroung there!

Brian

[Brian Gaff]

Well that is just stupid is it not. after all the building cannot be decorated either if they are that close. It seems to be a problem just waiting to happen, and if there are claims I'm sure the insurance boys will argue over this for years.

Brian

[John Rumm]

of places seem to get built with gaps too small for access these days...

[Chris J Dixon]

083629/FO/2007/S2 | Erection of a 2 storey dwellinghouse with associated garden at rear | Land Between 28 And 30 Allanson Road Northenden Manchester M22 4HL

"Residential Amenity - A number of objections have been received from surrounding properties who are concerned about the impact of the proposal on the visual amenity of the street scene and the fact that numbers 28 and 30 Allanson Road will no longer be viewed as semi-detached properties in their own right.

The proposal is not considered to have a negative impact on the visual amenity or character of the area due to the prevalence of terrace properties along the street.

In addition, concern has been raised regarding the impact, of the building, on the window and flue in the side elevation of number

1. The dwelling has been designed so that the rear of the building does not occupy the full width of the plot. As such, there is a set back at first floor level at the rear which will enable access and light to the window. There is also access to the boiler flue.

As for maintenance of the external walls of 28 and 30 Allanson Road, matters of this nature are not a planning consideration, and are covered by the provisions of the Party Wall Act. In addition, matters such as the perceived reduction in the value of surrounding properties as a result of new developments is not a material consideration in the determination of planning applications."

Chris

[Huge]

Bastards.

[Nick Odell]

Well, at least they won't have problems caused by snow on the carport.

Nick

[Frank Erskine]

into a terrace. However, the article I read said the residents were "shocked" or something when they "found out". Surely they would have seen it being built ?

Indeed, shouldn't they have been consulted/invited to comment at the planning application stage?

[Andrew May]

made into a terrace. However, the article I read said the residents were "shocked" or something when they "found out". Surely they would have seen it being built ?

Maybe they were "shocked" when they "found out" that the planners had passed it despite their obections.

[polygonum]

I note the linked DM story repeatedly refers to "residents". Maybe the inference is that they are tenants - not owners. Would this affect their right to consultation and/or invitation to comment?

Indeed, if that is the case, maybe the owner(s) did agree to the development?

[Frank Erskine]

AFAIR consultation document are sent to the occupier.

[mogga]

The addresses get the letters not a person.

It sometimes shows on planning who they consulted.

[Tim Streater]

Why d'ye think that their objections are in any way relevant? Planners are more or less obliged to pass an application unless they have a planning objection - and "I don't like it" does not fall into that category.

Also, a council does much better if it has a Local Plan. Then it can refer to that when it refuses something. Otherwise it can be overridden at appeal by the Inspector who will say "Where's your Local Plan?".

[PeterC]

Here's a good'un - rendering and poor pointing

[SteveW]

Indeed it does. I was suprised that when we built a conservatory (house already extended, so we needed PP), they notified two houses to the left of us (both with extensions or conservatories sticking out further than our plans), two houses to the right (one with an extension longer than ours and the other that would not be able to see our conservatory at all because of that extension) and four houses on the opposite side of the road (that again would not be able to see it) ... yet they failed to contact anyone in the row backing onto us, despite it being visible to all of them!

SteveW

[Lobster]

[snip]

So what does the Party Wall Act have to say on this situation (ie where it's been made physically impossible to conduct maintenance on the dividing wall) - anybody know?