Footings crossing boundary

[Rockydell]

Hi, As I understand it from a previous thread a week or so back, it is permissable to build a garage extension right up to the boundary between neighbouring properties and the foundations can actually cross over. The idea being to eliminate unsightly gaps between extensions built side by side. If this is the case, what happens when the second person to build then wants to build up to the boundary too? Does his wall bear on those original foundations? If so, what happens if those foundations are only suitable for a single story and the second person wants to build higher? (I may be in a similar situation sometime. The original thread fizzled out.)

Rockydell

[Rockydell]

Hi, As I understand it from a previous thread a week or so back, it is permissable to build a garage extension right up to the boundary between neighbouring properties and the foundations can actually cross over. The idea being to eliminate unsightly gaps between extensions built side by side. If this is the case, what happens when the second person to build then wants to build up to the boundary too? Does his wall bear on those original foundations? If so, what happens if those foundations are only suitable for a single story and the second person wants to build higher? (I may be in a similar situation sometime. The original thread fizzled out.)

Rockydell

[Peter Crosland]

I did not see the original thread but it certainly is NOT acceptable without permission, preferably by altering the deeds, and in many cases building regs and/or planning would prevent it. If you want to build right up the boundary where there is another wall the sensible thing to do is agree this with the neighbour and plan ahead.

[Christian McArdle]

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.

Christian.

[BillV]

Indeed, a friend of mine feel foul of this when the footings for his extension were being dug. The neighbour pointed out the pitched roof and gutter of the extension would be over his garden. So the plans and footings had to altered and there was significant extra expense incurred.

[Christian McArdle]

Yes, it is prudent to ascertain that you own the land before you design and build!

Christian.

[Parish]

I think that this is the post the OP was referring to:

quote:

"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."

[Tony Bryer]

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.

[Zymurgy]

"Christian McArdle" wrote

Or air in this case.

Is it a daft question to ask that the boundary extends 'virtually' upwards from the property line. How far ?

Can I charge BAA for entering the airspace I own above my house ;-)

P.

[Elessar]

They've built an airport over your house?.

[Peter Taylor]

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 other purpose."

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.

Peter

[The Natural Philosopher]

No. The bounday extyends upwards essentially to aircraft level, because you are allowed to shoot birds that fall intio your land. You are not allowed to shot aircraft that fly over. IIRC there is a 250ft minimum altidude on aircaft as well, so that is esentially where 'your property' stops and 'free airspace' begins, for practical puroses.

It does NO exend downwards: Mineral extraction rights are NOT automatically granted.

In the sense of overlooking, it doesn't even extend up to the boundary.

[Christian McArdle]

There isn't. There is a 500ft rule in a direct line from any structure rule. So if you had a farm and were away from any buildings, people, vehicles etc, the trespass only starts when the wheels touch the ground. However, for a standard house plot, there is effectively a 500ft minimum fly over height. Over a congested area (which originally intended to mean towns and cities, but is now harshly interpreted by the courts to basically mean anything from a small hamlet upwards), there is a minimum 1500ft height.

However, the 500ft rule is not applied when aircraft are using the space to take off or land. The 1500ft rule doesn't apply either, provided it is a licenced aerodrome, which last time I checked the AIP, anything BAA operated was, not surprisingly!

Christian.

[Parish]

I assume that it doesn't to the RAF either? If it does then the Hercules pilots at RAF Lyneham need a slap - they fly that low (well under 500ft) over here sometimes that you can feel the pressure "pulses" from the props *inside* the house.

[Owain]

"Zymurgy" wrote | 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.

Owain

[Huge]

[23 lines snipped]

you are allowed to shoot birds that fall intio your land. You are not

CAA Rule 5, IIRC. I can't find the file of letters of complain I keep at the moment, else I'd be able to give you Chapter & Verse.

[Huge]

Structure, vehicle or person.

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.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Huge]

[20 lines snipped]

In theory it does apply to the RAF. In practice, the MoD will merely deny that there were aircraft operating in that area at that time.

I've had a Chinook come over so low that the guy standing in the side cargo door waved.

Still, the occasional military (and Duxford) stuff is quite entertaining, unlike the people racking up hours who go round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round.

[Al Reynolds]

I used to live on a street which was on top of an inland cliff. The street at the bottom of the cliff was a notorious drugs hotspot, and it wasn't uncommon to look out of my bedroom window and look down on the police helicopter using its searchlight!

Al

[Christian McArdle]

Many planes don't have windscreen wipers.

Christian.