Re: PD - boundary wall straddling two properties - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Only PD rights for development within a curtilege, if straying past that curtilege no pd rights. There are appeals and caselaw on this dating back 25 years. Sorry though dont have any immediately to hand.

Just to throw a spanner in the works, has the extension to House A been built? If so, and if the wall on the boundary is regarded as a party wall, the following may be relevant. Not sure it's that relevant though if the extension at House A has not already been built. A number of appeal decisions have been made with regard to party walls that form part of two dwellings. A planning application at No. 77 Platts Lane, Hampstead (London Borough of Barnet Reference: F/01371/09; PINS Reference: 09/2108111) which sought permission for a dormer window and would have involved raising the party wall of the property. In the appeal decision for the application the Inspector made reference to another appeal decision (01/106324) and quoted numerous Appeal Court Decisions, in particular, McAlpine v. Secretary of State for the Environment and Wycombe District Council, 1995. On the basis of these determined cases, it was established that two adjoining curtilages can overlap each other, where a party wall shared by two contiguous properties could result in the partial collapse of both if the wall was removed. The Inspector determined that because such small areas were involved, and with a party wall such an integral part of two dwellinghouses, two curtilages could overlap and on this basis we have taken the view that works involving a party wall as a joint building exercise would be part of the development permitted by Part 1 of Sch 2 of the GPDO.

Thanks for your replies. The extension at house A, has not yet been built and we have no indications that house B will have any extension built either (except for the wall)

Where we are of the view that there is encroachment we would normally take a pragmatic view and say that provided the extension would be PD in each curtilage it would be lawful. In your situation we would assess it against the Part 1 Class A rights of both property A and property B, the logic being that all parts of the development are within one curtilage or another and therefore within "a curtilage" (not taking the singular too literally). This approach seems to work well, but I'd be interested to see some of the case law and appeal decisions Andrew mentions.

David, The wall at house B should only, in my view be seen as a wall (thus Part 2). I don't think it falls within Part 1. I have read the decision that Mike refers to, but have always maintained that if curtilages overlap, no development, even inside the party wall line, could be within the curtilage of a (singular) dwellinghouse, as the neighbours curtilage would overspill into the curtilage where the development was. The attached decision notice is the best I have seen for contesting the overlaping curtilage approach. Though the appeal was successful, the exclusivity of a single curtilage was well addressed. There is an other decision from Bath I think, but I have been unable to locate it. Richard