The property behind mine has a large makeshift shed. Because the level of
their garden is about 2ft higher, the height is about 3m above the level of
our lawn. Now he's saying he wants to build it in brick, ie rip down the
shanty-town thing that is there and replace it with a brickbuilt outhouse.
Anyone know what rules would govern this? It seems a bit excessively high to
be built right up against my fence, and shouldn't he have toget planning
permission?

I'm worried because our house is currently being sold, and I don't want to
get into a dispute which might endanger the sale, but on the other hand, I
can't ignore it.

John

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:02:13 +0100, "JK" wrote:

The property behind mine has a large makeshift shed. Because the level of
their garden is about 2ft higher, the height is about 3m above the level of
our lawn. Now he's saying he wants to build it in brick, ie rip down the
shanty-town thing that is there and replace it with a brickbuilt outhouse.
Anyone know what rules would govern this? It seems a bit excessively high to
be built right up against my fence, and shouldn't he have toget planning
permission?


It is dependent on the area and height of the shed.

Planning permission is not required if:

1. It does not project in front of any wall of the house which fronts
onto a highway (road, footpath, service road, garage court), unless
the highway is more than 20 metres away;

2. If any part of the building will be within 5 metres of any part of
the house, it should not have a cubic content(i.e. length x width x
height external measurements) greater than 10 cubic metres.

3. The height of the building/structure does not exceed 4 metres with
a pitched roof or 3 metres in any other case.

4. The total area of ground covered by buildings/structures(not
including the original dwellinghouse) within the garden would not
exceed 50% of the total garden area (excluding the area of the
original house).

5. The cubic content of the building does not exceed 10 cubic metres
if your property is a listed building or within a conservation area.

6. There is not a planning condition attached to the original planning
consent for the property stating that no sheds or other structures can
be erected without the prior approval of the local planning authority.
If you are not certain please check with the planning division.

7. The property is not within an area where an Article 4 direction is
in force, such as a conservation area.



Building regulations application is not required if:

1. The building is detached and has a floor area of 15 square metres
or less.

2. The building is detached and is more than 1 metre from the boundary
(or is constructed largely of non-combustible materials) and has a
floor area 30 square metres or less.

However, this is the situation for a "temporary" building like a shed
which is not used for habitation.


I'm worried because our house is currently being sold, and I don't want to
get into a dispute which might endanger the sale, but on the other hand, I
can't ignore it.

I think that given the circumstances of selling it, ignoring it is the
right thing to do.

If you get into any type of dispute with the neighbour, including
raising the issue with the local authority, you will have to declare
it to potential buyers.

If the building is replaced with something in brick and it is properly
done (may be a big if) then that wouldn't that be an improvement?

It really depends on how imminent the sale is. If it is ongoing,
then I would have thought doing nothing is the best option.

If the neighbour is doing something that doesn't conform to building
regulations then the new owner will be able to have that dealt with by
the local authority. The same is true if planning permission is
needed and not sought. Either it would be granted, or it wouldn't
for statutory reasons, or it would be a planning committee decision.

In none of those cases would that be altered by you being there or the
successor owner of your house.

Any prospective purchaser is going to see the shed next door and will
either be put off by it or not.

I don't see the point in making an issue of it.


John


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

JK wrote:
The property behind mine has a large makeshift shed. Because the level of
their garden is about 2ft higher, the height is about 3m above the level of
our lawn. Now he's saying he wants to build it in brick, ie rip down the
shanty-town thing that is there and replace it with a brickbuilt outhouse.
Anyone know what rules would govern this? It seems a bit excessively high to
be built right up against my fence, and shouldn't he have toget planning
permission?

I'm worried because our house is currently being sold, and I don't want to
get into a dispute which might endanger the sale, but on the other hand, I
can't ignore it.

John



In the UK he would need planning permission for anything brick-built
over 6ft high.
At least that's what it used to be.

Jason


--
Check out my ebay auctions for Passifora caerulea and edulis seeds and
Morning Glory (Star of Yelta) seeds.
http://cgi6.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....sort=3&rows=50

In article ,
Grunff wrote:
Jason Pope wrote:

In the UK he would need planning permission for anything brick-built
over 6ft high.

Nonsense.

At least that's what it used to be.

No, this has never been the case.

Like most urban myths, there is a modicum of truth behind this one,
but only enough to say that it is not wholly a fantasy.

London had planning laws for a good many centuries before they
existed in the rest of the country, and there were references in
them to permanent constructions of over 6' high. Certainly walls,
but perhaps sheds as well.

It is therefore POSSIBLE that was the case in London before about
1955 - but it certainly wasn't anywhere else ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from "JK" contains these words:

The property behind mine has a large makeshift shed. Because the level of
their garden is about 2ft higher, the height is about 3m above the level of
our lawn. Now he's saying he wants to build it in brick, ie rip down the
shanty-town thing that is there and replace it with a brickbuilt outhouse.
Anyone know what rules would govern this? It seems a bit excessively high to
be built right up against my fence, and shouldn't he have toget planning
permission?

I'm worried because our house is currently being sold, and I don't want to
get into a dispute which might endanger the sale, but on the other hand, I
can't ignore it.

You're right that if you are involved in a current dispute with a
neighbour, you are obliged to reveal this if a purchaser asks (and they
will, if their solicitor is competent). That doesn't necessarily
endanger the sale.

You might also get into a legal tangle if you fail to notify a buyer
of some relevant information he can prove you knew about; such as when
his new neighbour says "Brick monstrosity? Old JK knew all about it
before he sold up, surely he told you?".

Making a simple enquiry at your local planning dept about planning
restrictions, is not a dispute with your neighbour. When your buyer asks
about neighbour relations, you can (truthfully) say you have never had
any problems with your neighbour, and pass on what you've found out.

Janet

In uk.d-i-y nambucca wrote:

"JK" wrote in message
...
snip
Any structure like a shed etc can be 3 metres high with a flat roof or 4
metres high with a ridge roof ........must not cover more than 50% of the
garden and be x? feet away from the main house


A note I found at http://www.onlineplanningoffices.co.uk/ said that
it's 3/4m high, measured from the highest ground next to it.
Can you do landscaping, and then realise you want to put a shed
down, raising the limits to 3/4m over the soil level at one corner, or
it it original level?

nambucca wrote:
"JK" wrote in message
...
The property behind mine has a large makeshift shed. Because the
level of their garden is about 2ft higher, the height is about 3m
above the level of our lawn. Now he's saying he wants to build it in
brick, ie rip down the shanty-town thing that is there and replace
it with a brickbuilt outhouse. Anyone know what rules would govern
this? It seems a bit excessively high to be built right up against
my fence, and shouldn't he have toget planning permission?

I'm worried because our house is currently being sold, and I don't
want to get into a dispute which might endanger the sale, but on the
other hand, I can't ignore it.

John


Any structure like a shed etc can be 3 metres high with a flat roof
or 4 metres high with a ridge roof ........must not cover more than
50% of the garden and be x? feet away from the main house

If the soil level is higher than yours then its the neighbours
responsibility to retain soil levels

Well the level of that street is a bit higher (2feet) than ours, so the shed
does loom over us. It is right up against the wall but I think it is about
30ft from our house. It sounds like even if I did want to compain it would
be pointless.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:02:13 +0100, "JK" wrote:

The property behind mine has a large makeshift shed. Because the
level of their garden is about 2ft higher, the height is about 3m
above the level of our lawn. Now he's saying he wants to build it in
brick, ie rip down the shanty-town thing that is there and replace
it with a brickbuilt outhouse. Anyone know what rules would govern
this? It seems a bit excessively high to be built right up against
my fence, and shouldn't he have toget planning permission?


It is dependent on the area and height of the shed.

Planning permission is not required if:

1. It does not project in front of any wall of the house which fronts
onto a highway (road, footpath, service road, garage court), unless
the highway is more than 20 metres away;

2. If any part of the building will be within 5 metres of any part of
the house, it should not have a cubic content(i.e. length x width x
height external measurements) greater than 10 cubic metres.

3. The height of the building/structure does not exceed 4 metres with
a pitched roof or 3 metres in any other case.

4. The total area of ground covered by buildings/structures(not
including the original dwellinghouse) within the garden would not
exceed 50% of the total garden area (excluding the area of the
original house).

5. The cubic content of the building does not exceed 10 cubic metres
if your property is a listed building or within a conservation area.

6. There is not a planning condition attached to the original planning
consent for the property stating that no sheds or other structures can
be erected without the prior approval of the local planning authority.
If you are not certain please check with the planning division.

7. The property is not within an area where an Article 4 direction is
in force, such as a conservation area.



Building regulations application is not required if:

1. The building is detached and has a floor area of 15 square metres
or less.

2. The building is detached and is more than 1 metre from the boundary
(or is constructed largely of non-combustible materials) and has a
floor area 30 square metres or less.

However, this is the situation for a "temporary" building like a shed
which is not used for habitation.


I'm worried because our house is currently being sold, and I don't
want to get into a dispute which might endanger the sale, but on the
other hand, I can't ignore it.

I think that given the circumstances of selling it, ignoring it is the
right thing to do.

If you get into any type of dispute with the neighbour, including
raising the issue with the local authority, you will have to declare
it to potential buyers.

If the building is replaced with something in brick and it is properly
done (may be a big if) then that wouldn't that be an improvement?

It really depends on how imminent the sale is. If it is ongoing,
then I would have thought doing nothing is the best option.

If the neighbour is doing something that doesn't conform to building
regulations then the new owner will be able to have that dealt with by
the local authority. The same is true if planning permission is
needed and not sought. Either it would be granted, or it wouldn't
for statutory reasons, or it would be a planning committee decision.

In none of those cases would that be altered by you being there or the
successor owner of your house.

Any prospective purchaser is going to see the shed next door and will
either be put off by it or not.

I don't see the point in making an issue of it.


John


.andy

I can certainly see the logic in this. But do I not still have a
responsibility to inform buyers of the imminent building of a large brick
shed at the bottom of the garden? Even if I don't involve the council it
will become obvious that I have omitted to tell them. I guess you're right
that the current structure has not put them off, so a better one should not
bother them either. He does intend to make it wider however. If it wasn't
for the sale, I would want to involve the council as I think neighbours
should be consulted when a large structure like this goes up.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:06:39 +0100, "JK" wrote:

If the soil level is higher than yours then its the neighbours
responsibility to retain soil levels

Well the level of that street is a bit higher (2feet) than ours, so the shed
does loom over us. It is right up against the wall but I think it is about
30ft from our house. It sounds like even if I did want to compain it would
be pointless.

Hi,

What do the council planning dept say about the increased height due
to the difference in soil levels?

cheers,
Pete.

x-no-archive: yes
JK wrote in message
...

I can certainly see the logic in this. But do I not still have a
responsibility to inform buyers of the imminent building of a large brick
shed at the bottom of the garden? Even if I don't involve the council it
will become obvious that I have omitted to tell them. I guess you're right
that the current structure has not put them off, so a better one should
not
bother them either. He does intend to make it wider however. If it wasn't
for the sale, I would want to involve the council as I think neighbours
should be consulted when a large structure like this goes up.


You don't have a responsibility if you "don't know about it", and you don't
know about it do you??? (if you get my drift)

The message
from "JK" contains these words:


But do I not still have a
responsibility to inform buyers of the imminent building of a large brick
shed at the bottom of the garden?

That depends on what questions they, or their solicitors, ask you or
your solicitor.
If I was your buyer, my (highly competent) lawyer would certainly ask.
(Solicitors are called lawyers in Scotland).

Even if I don't involve the council it
will become obvious that I have omitted to tell them.

You should ask your solicitor's advice. Do it now, not later. IME,
it's far better to be upfront and matter of fact from the very start,
about any potential downsides. Prospective buyers can then decide for
themselves how much it would impinge on their lives. You will be amazed
to find that what seems an insurmountable objection to one viewer, is
completely trivial to another.

What you (and your lawyer) must avoid, is giving a buyer any excuse to
devalue your property at a much later stage in the proceedings. They
might then feign a last minute change of heart, followed by a reduced
offer which they hope you can't refuse because you're already committed
to your own next purchase.

Janet.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:40:15 +0100, Pete C
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:06:39 +0100, "JK" wrote:

If the soil level is higher than yours then its the neighbours
responsibility to retain soil levels

Well the level of that street is a bit higher (2feet) than ours, so the shed
does loom over us. It is right up against the wall but I think it is about
30ft from our house. It sounds like even if I did want to compain it would
be pointless.

Hi,

What do the council planning dept say about the increased height due
to the difference in soil levels?

cheers,
Pete.

There is nothing on that stated in either the notes that you can find
on most local authority web sites or in the planning legislation as
far as I have found. Therefore it would appear to be relative to
the ground level in the garden where it's built.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"JK" wrote
| I don't see the point in making an issue of it.
| I can certainly see the logic in this. But do I not still
| have a responsibility to inform buyers of the imminent
| building of a large brick shed at the bottom of the garden?

No. You must answer truthfully[1] if the purchaser asks "is the next door
neighbour planning to build Heathrow Terminal Five in the adjoining
garden?".

| Even if I don't involve the council it will become obvious that
| I have omitted to tell them.

That would only be an issue if you had an obligation to tell them[2]. Which
you (probably) don't. Unless they ask. After all, the neighbour's not doing
anything wrong is he.

Owain

[1] Truthfully does not exclude vaguely.

[2] Or are moving to the house-next-door and will have the purchaser as your
new neighbour.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:16:29 +0100, "JK" wrote:



I can certainly see the logic in this. But do I not still have a
responsibility to inform buyers of the imminent building of a large brick
shed at the bottom of the garden?

I would discuss it with your solicitor. As far as I know, you don't
and you only have to respond truthfully to questions asking about any
disputes with neighbours etc.

Even if I don't involve the council it
will become obvious that I have omitted to tell them.

Then I suppose that becomes a matter of conscience. While I'm
certainly not in favour of misleading people, you are not required to
tell a purchaser about all that is or might be wrong. The problem
is, if you go down that track, where do you stop? For example,
what about the place in the living room where the wallpaper doesn't
perfectly line up? Are you going to tell them about that?


I guess you're right
that the current structure has not put them off, so a better one should not
bother them either. He does intend to make it wider however. If it wasn't
for the sale, I would want to involve the council as I think neighbours
should be consulted when a large structure like this goes up.

Well..... that's another thing. If I were building something like
that, I would (and I did) go and discuss it with my neighbour. On a
cabin that I built last year, I deliberately went for a low pitched
roof to keep the height down. It worked rather well and the result is
fine from his perspective.

However, let's say you were staying there. The rules on planning and
building regulation are pretty well defined as regards structures of
this type. From the planning angle, if he doesn't exceed the rules,
then he doesn't have to go for planning permission or to consult
anybody. If he did exceed the rules or use the shed for
habitation, then that's a different matter and you could make an issue
of it.

My point was really that the new occupier would have exactly the same
rights as you and could take it up with the local authority if he
likes. It isn't as though he is losing out. If the neighbour breaks
the rules then the council can be asked to act - if the new occupier
wants to make an issue of it. He might be happy about it.

As I say. talk about it to your solicitor and see what he says. I
would expect that unless there is a question where you would have to
reveal this then the advice will be not to volunteer the information.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Nick Maclaren wrote:
Like most urban myths, there is a modicum of truth behind this one,
but only enough to say that it is not wholly a fantasy.

London had planning laws for a good many centuries before they
existed in the rest of the country, and there were references in
them to permanent constructions of over 6' high. Certainly walls,
but perhaps sheds as well.

It is therefore POSSIBLE that was the case in London before about
1955 - but it certainly wasn't anywhere else ....

On top of all this there are covenants. The estate upon which I live has
covenants on the deeds preventing enclosure of the front garden; the
building of any form of structure whatsoever, including sheds, in the back
garden; and the keeping of animals on the land.

The original purpose of these covenants was to help the builder sell the
last plots, and all 3 covenants are now largely ignored. Since the original
covenant was with a firm that has gone bankrupt/been wound up 25 years ago
for tax purposes, I imagine the remaining beneficiaries round here are the
neighbours - most of whom have already broken the terms.

But you never know. It's worth talking to your solicitor