Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Going on to a neighbour's land
Are you allowed to enter a neighbours land or airspace (eg if something hangs over their side tempoarily) if it's necessary to build a new house or extension without their permission?
Thanks for any help.
Thanks for any help.
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Schnikki. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is a very contentious area of law, so I'll try to explain it as best I can:
Any unauthorised entry onto land is a trespass- this has been held to be swinging wrecking balls and cranes, advertising hoardings (an 8 inch encroachment); even piles of leaves. One notable case even attempted to sue an aviation company. (The Civil Aviation Act 1972 sections 76 (a-e) and 80 govern reasonable use of airspace.)
It all comes down to what is reasonable in the circumstances. Generally, the Access To Neighbouring Lands Act 1992 is only able to allow entry to land for 'basic preservation works' - of which it does not specifically state that building extensions qualifies (Hence the obscurity).
Even a temporary or singular infringement into land is actionable through the courts if the 'injured' party so wishes. However, the outcome is at the discretion of the courts.
In the case of the swinging crane, the construction company had previously offered the claimant a sum of money to get permission to have the crane to swing over their land; the claimants had refused this offer. The builders were under time penalty clauses, and so for reasons of economics, committed the trespass anyway. The courts granted the claimant the injuction to prevent the defendants continuing this, but it only started on the date that the construction works ended, rendering it effectively useless.
The notion is thus that 'he who seeks equity must do equity'- that for the courts to be fair, the parties must have acted with good intentions. The refusal of the claimants to accept the money offer rebutted this and so the courts were reluctant to help.
Hopefully, this skeleton can be applied to your present facts so that you may be able to come to a conclusion as to the correct cause of action.
Any unauthorised entry onto land is a trespass- this has been held to be swinging wrecking balls and cranes, advertising hoardings (an 8 inch encroachment); even piles of leaves. One notable case even attempted to sue an aviation company. (The Civil Aviation Act 1972 sections 76 (a-e) and 80 govern reasonable use of airspace.)
It all comes down to what is reasonable in the circumstances. Generally, the Access To Neighbouring Lands Act 1992 is only able to allow entry to land for 'basic preservation works' - of which it does not specifically state that building extensions qualifies (Hence the obscurity).
Even a temporary or singular infringement into land is actionable through the courts if the 'injured' party so wishes. However, the outcome is at the discretion of the courts.
In the case of the swinging crane, the construction company had previously offered the claimant a sum of money to get permission to have the crane to swing over their land; the claimants had refused this offer. The builders were under time penalty clauses, and so for reasons of economics, committed the trespass anyway. The courts granted the claimant the injuction to prevent the defendants continuing this, but it only started on the date that the construction works ended, rendering it effectively useless.
The notion is thus that 'he who seeks equity must do equity'- that for the courts to be fair, the parties must have acted with good intentions. The refusal of the claimants to accept the money offer rebutted this and so the courts were reluctant to help.
Hopefully, this skeleton can be applied to your present facts so that you may be able to come to a conclusion as to the correct cause of action.
Actually it's far simpler than that.
A piece of legislation known as the Party Wall Act was enacted in 1996 and this can be used in exactly this situation.
Download the 20 page booklet from this Government site and read all about it.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/pla nningandbuilding/partywall
A piece of legislation known as the Party Wall Act was enacted in 1996 and this can be used in exactly this situation.
Download the 20 page booklet from this Government site and read all about it.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/pla nningandbuilding/partywall
In retrospect I didn't actually answer your question!
Yes you are - even if the neighbour tries to be 'difficult'. That's why the legislation was introduced. At worst you may have to employ a 'Party Wall Surveyor' and fund the cost of your neighbour doing the same. The booklet explains all. Some neighbours may just agree to letting you do this once you show them the 'powers' that you could invoke. Others are just bloodyminded about it.
Yes you are - even if the neighbour tries to be 'difficult'. That's why the legislation was introduced. At worst you may have to employ a 'Party Wall Surveyor' and fund the cost of your neighbour doing the same. The booklet explains all. Some neighbours may just agree to letting you do this once you show them the 'powers' that you could invoke. Others are just bloodyminded about it.
As I understand it, the PWA only allows for
'work on a wall, floor or ceiling shared with another property',
building on the boundary with another property, or
excavating within 6 metres of an adjoining building'.
The question includes airspace and thus denoted to me that this question was beyond the PWA as the author makes no mention of any adjoining walls.
Further, the case law's evolution runs parallel with the facts as asked. I also happen to know that a moot problem has recently been released by BPP Law School in a competition asking EXACTLY this question (I know the author). His expected response did not include the PWA. :-) If I misinterpreted the act, please let me know Buildersmate.
'work on a wall, floor or ceiling shared with another property',
building on the boundary with another property, or
excavating within 6 metres of an adjoining building'.
The question includes airspace and thus denoted to me that this question was beyond the PWA as the author makes no mention of any adjoining walls.
Further, the case law's evolution runs parallel with the facts as asked. I also happen to know that a moot problem has recently been released by BPP Law School in a competition asking EXACTLY this question (I know the author). His expected response did not include the PWA. :-) If I misinterpreted the act, please let me know Buildersmate.
-- answer removed --
No, the PWA can be used for any work close to an adjoining boundary - it doesn't merely apply to works where there is an actual 'party wall'. So if you need to get scaffolding over the boundary temporarily in order to do the build, and the neighbour is being difficult, that's one situation when it is useful.
You're evidently a lawyer, GMC, I'm not - I just use the law.
You're evidently a lawyer, GMC, I'm not - I just use the law.
Gmcd01 is correct.
Under the Access to Neighbouring Lands Act access can be obtained only for maintaining an existing structure, not new build.
The Party Wall Act deals only with work on an existing wall, floor or ceiling shared with another property and does not provide access for maintaining a neighbouring existing property or for new build.
In the case of new build if an adjoining owner will not permit access that is the end of it and the technique for constructing adjacent to the prohibited area has to be changed to what is called "overhand" in the construction industry.
Under the Access to Neighbouring Lands Act access can be obtained only for maintaining an existing structure, not new build.
The Party Wall Act deals only with work on an existing wall, floor or ceiling shared with another property and does not provide access for maintaining a neighbouring existing property or for new build.
In the case of new build if an adjoining owner will not permit access that is the end of it and the technique for constructing adjacent to the prohibited area has to be changed to what is called "overhand" in the construction industry.
PWA Section 1, subsection 6 concerns new building on line of junction and says:-
�Where the building owner builds a wall wholly on his own land in accordance with subsection (4) or (5) he shall have the right, at any time in the period which�
(a) begins one month after the day on which the notice mentioned in the subsection concerned was served, and
(b) ends twelve months after that day,
to place below the level of the land of the adjoining owner such projecting footings and foundations as are necessary for the construction of the wall.�
That, my friend, means you can put scaffolding on the adjoining neighbour's land if you are building a new wall on the boundary.
PWA Section 6 relates to adjacent excavation and construction. Subsection 1 says: -
�This section applies where�
(a) a building owner proposes to excavate, or excavate for and erect a building or structure, within a distance of three metres measured horizontally from any part of a building or structure of an adjoining owner; and
(b) any part of the proposed excavation, building or structure will within those three metres extend to a lower level than the level of the bottom of the foundations of the building or structure of the adjoining owner.�
That, my friend, means the PWA doesn�t just apply to building on the party wall line, but also includes new build close to it. And it does not just apply in the case of shared walls (or fences).
I rest my case.
�Where the building owner builds a wall wholly on his own land in accordance with subsection (4) or (5) he shall have the right, at any time in the period which�
(a) begins one month after the day on which the notice mentioned in the subsection concerned was served, and
(b) ends twelve months after that day,
to place below the level of the land of the adjoining owner such projecting footings and foundations as are necessary for the construction of the wall.�
That, my friend, means you can put scaffolding on the adjoining neighbour's land if you are building a new wall on the boundary.
PWA Section 6 relates to adjacent excavation and construction. Subsection 1 says: -
�This section applies where�
(a) a building owner proposes to excavate, or excavate for and erect a building or structure, within a distance of three metres measured horizontally from any part of a building or structure of an adjoining owner; and
(b) any part of the proposed excavation, building or structure will within those three metres extend to a lower level than the level of the bottom of the foundations of the building or structure of the adjoining owner.�
That, my friend, means the PWA doesn�t just apply to building on the party wall line, but also includes new build close to it. And it does not just apply in the case of shared walls (or fences).
I rest my case.
buildersmate has not received a proper education and has had no training and experience in any matter connected with the construction industry and is ignorant of the Party Wall Act. The whole Act must be read together, it is criminal and dangerous to take partial sections out of context and pervert them and to pass off the perverted sections as fact to the unknowing as buildersmate has done.
The sections referred to deal with matters related to a Party Wall only, nothing else. It is an easy read even for the layman, and if you go to this link you can read the Act and the sections perverted by buildersmate and see how in actual fact it all fits together.
The answer to Schnikki's question is an unequivocal no. If the owner of adjoining land will not give permission for access to assist in the construction of a new house or an extension then that is his unassailable right and is an end to the matter.
The sections referred to deal with matters related to a Party Wall only, nothing else. It is an easy read even for the layman, and if you go to this link you can read the Act and the sections perverted by buildersmate and see how in actual fact it all fits together.
The answer to Schnikki's question is an unequivocal no. If the owner of adjoining land will not give permission for access to assist in the construction of a new house or an extension then that is his unassailable right and is an end to the matter.
Tripe.
I provided the Question Asker with the Government's own interpretation guide, because this provides the layman with an everyday explanation of what his rights are regarding the PWA. But it is not an interpretation of the law.
I then bothered to pull out some actual wording in the Act because, Mustafa, you appear to want to challenge so much of what I say. You then have the gaul to refer to the whole Act and post an assertion about me about which you have no evidence.
Section 1 of the Act deals with new building on the party wall line. Mustafa says "The Party Wall Act deals only with work on an existing wall, floor or ceiling shared with another property and does not provide access for maintaining a neighbouring existing property or for new build." That is tripe. End of story.
You should be banned from this site.
I provided the Question Asker with the Government's own interpretation guide, because this provides the layman with an everyday explanation of what his rights are regarding the PWA. But it is not an interpretation of the law.
I then bothered to pull out some actual wording in the Act because, Mustafa, you appear to want to challenge so much of what I say. You then have the gaul to refer to the whole Act and post an assertion about me about which you have no evidence.
Section 1 of the Act deals with new building on the party wall line. Mustafa says "The Party Wall Act deals only with work on an existing wall, floor or ceiling shared with another property and does not provide access for maintaining a neighbouring existing property or for new build." That is tripe. End of story.
You should be banned from this site.
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
Crosswords1 min ago
News6 mins ago
Ireland's Own Crossword No 1827
Crosswords10 mins ago
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|