UKC

We've a rented house and the neighbours wish to buidl an extension. No object in overall principle.

We have been served a party wall notice, as expected, but with two options:
- The first, to build solely on the neighbours land
- The second is for them to build astride the boundary

The benefit being touted for the second is that should we wish to extend in future we can simply key into the existing wall (and they have waived any charge to do so) rather than build anew.

My instinct is to keep the boundary pure but wondered if others had been through this and had informed views?

Thanks

In reply to JJL:

Honestly, I'd ask them to keep it well within the boundary. I've been a builder all my life and one thing we dread is boundaries, they're an absolute nightmare. One thing to remember is to make sure they keep all fascia, soffit and guttering inside their boundary too as this is often overlooked at the foundation stage when setting out, and ends up over hanging the neighbours property.

In reply to JJL:

Probably depends upon your own view of future extensions to your property - either by yourself or others. If you might extend in future, then creating an extended party wall means you have a wall built for free, so that would figure in my calculations, particularly if you already share a party wall. If you are never going to extend and anyone else is unlikely to either, then preserving the boundary makes more sense, including the points about overhanging rainwater goods etc.

I'd look ahead - it would be dismal to be building another wall, on a new set of footings, alongside a perfectly good wall already constructed at someone else's expense. If you like the look of their plans, extending at the same time would be economic...

In reply to Derek Furze:

Thanks, also to Wsdconst.

So one for and one against. Any other views?!

In reply to JJL:

Well it's less one for and one against but asking you what you want to do - surely since the house is rented, isn't it the landlords decision?

In reply to JJL:
As you mentioned, building astride the boundary will benefit you only if you have any intention of building a similar extension that could make use of the wall, so that's what I would be asking myself. Not really from a cost point of view, I don't even think the charge to enclose on the wall (which they have suggested would be waived) is normally that high? but more as Derek says, it would be a bit grim to build another flank wall parallel.

Maybe also worth considering neighbourly relations? I imagine they prefer to gain a little more space (basically from you!) and build astride the boundary. That said we always advise to build up to the line (not astride) because it seems cleaner.

I assume you are the owners and have rented the property to someone else, because the notice is served on the adjoining owner not the occupier.

Hope it goes well.

In reply to brendanM:

Thanks all.

Yes, we're the owners. Relations are good (we've agreed to share a surveyor for this for example).

We've decided to keep the boundary intact.

Thanks again

In reply to JJL:

If they build almost up to the boundary on their side, and then in the future you wish to extend, you won't be able to easily build to close to the boundary on your side, because digging down for your foundations will chop into the soil supporting their foundations. Hope that description makes sense.