Built without plans, over a municpal servitude and building line

[Osman16]

having read your posts what you seem to be looking for is a way to get away with your illegal action. What your intent was in doing it (ignorance or whatever) makes zero difference. You did something illegal - end of discussion. And I don't know what you expect any of us to do about it.

If you think you and your lawyer can bullshit your way out of it - mazel tov. The only other option is to take it down. Should have checked what the building regs were before you built - you know because like that isn't exactly a huge giant secret.

Yeah, you have it all worked out. If i wanted to "bullshit" my way out of things, let us not forget this is South Africa, and if "bullshitting" my way out is what i wanted to do, i would not need a lawyer, architect or whoever, you are right, i am looking for a way to get out of my illegal action, and if there is a way to get out of it by making it legal as opposed to ruining it, then what harm is there in me trying to find that way?

 

[RonSwanson]

What kind of pipe is it? If sewerage, maybe build a toilet on it?

 

[Osman16]

I do not know, it is not a very wide pipe as i saw when we dug to find it. There are toulets on the portion where the building is enroaching the pipe, unfortunately, the pipe is about 2m under the foundation width wise and covered for about 10m lenght wise

 

[Corelli]

It depends on your area plans. We were allowed to build up against the border wall but had to run our chimney back 1.5m from the boundary.

But building without plans is bad and i know of a builder who recently tries his luck at my friend. He wanted to run their storm gutters into the sewerage and tried many other shortcuts. Eventually he got fired by them.

 

[Corelli]

Also it sounds like ure planning on going up. 1m for a double story from the building line is invasion of privacy. I would ask you to knock it down. Sadly your own loss and the council can fine you if you dont fix it. Can be in the tens of thousands. Also they can issus a notice that means you cant sell your house till its fixed or even if you got it right, the new owners can sue you to have it fixed.

 

[Swa]

I

Always assumed the building line was 3m, the municipality did visit and inspect, but it seems to risky to dig and divert as it could affect foundations i just want for all of this, to be legalised , in that i accept whatever risk, can finish the building and move on with legal and approved plans, also without having my neighbour wanting to rip my head of, i do accept thatvi messed up with this entire thing but it was genuinely misjudgment rather than wanting to do mybown thing and ignore the law

Our house and the neighbour's are both within 1m from the boundary. Both were built by the municipality. One neighbour built a shack right next to the wall. Another one built a double story garage on the boundary so it's essentially the wall as well. A building line that's more than 1m from the boundary is a bit excessive.

Thing is, the issue for me ia simple, i am willing to sign indemnity for the pupe should anything go wrong, i just do not get why it is taking them so long, they did tell me that if i sign it means theybcan come into mybplace and bust walls and so on should anything go wrong, i have little choice but to accept and do not mind.

Seems your best bet is to get them to move it even if you do it and pay for it yourself. A servitude should be next to the boundary and not 2m away from it.

Listen if you built an illegal structure right on my boundary which affects the value of my house as well I'd also be pissed off with you and entirely not inclined to give you a relaxation.

The right thing is to take the damn illegal thing down.

People are pedantic about it though. Most things don't affect the value of your property.

 

[Osman16]

Also it sounds like ure planning on going up. 1m for a double story from the building line is invasion of privacy. I would ask you to knock it down. Sadly your own loss and the council can fine you if you dont fix it. Can be in the tens of thousands. Also they can issus a notice that means you cant sell your house till its fixed or even if you got it right, the new owners can sue you to have it fixed.

Indeed, the top is slabbed and the foundation is for a double story, however the wall that would be overlooking the neighbour wont have any windows or balconies on it so, no issue of privacy invasion, the council this far have actually been very understanding and are as mentioned willing to reach an agreement, i just worry that the longer it takes, the more likely they are to change their mind.

 

[RedViking]

If the neighbour wants to be difficult you are not gonna win this battle. The council can't just suddenly change the rules. If you really also cared you would not turn that into a double story. Put a roof on it as a single story.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Indeed, the top is slabbed and the foundation is for a double story, however the wall that would be overlooking the neighbour wont have any windows or balconies on it so, no issue of privacy invasion, the council this far have actually been very understanding and are as mentioned willing to reach an agreement, i just worry that the longer it takes, the more likely they are to change their mind.

The council so far are being nice to you... But if your neighbour pushes hard enough they won't be and there is absolutely nothing you can do.. You can go to court and you would lose.

 

[RonSwanson]

I know this is against regulation, but can't you choon the neighbor to look on the bright side: Sounds like he is actually getting a bargain, a real quality wall 'n all. As long as you don't put windows in it. Some okes just see bad in everything.

Why not buy the neighbor's pozzy, sign the relaxation agreement and then flog it onetime? How you think the Guptas did it in 2017?

 

[maumau]

If the neighbour wants to be difficult you are not gonna win this battle. The council can't just suddenly change the rules. If you really also cared you would not turn that into a double story. Put a roof on it as a single story.

100%. @OP would you neighbour sign if you give him a written guarantee not to build up?

 

[Osman16]

If the neighbour wants to be difficult you are not gonna win this battle. The council can't just suddenly change the rules. If you really also cared you would not turn that into a double story. Put a roof on it as a single story.

That is actually a good idea, put a roof over it rather than go up,

 

[Osman16]

100%. @OP would you neighbour sign if you give him a written guarantee not to build up?

I am hoping so, i take it their main concern is privacy and having the building shadowing over them, i think this is actually a very good option for everyone, rather than offer compensation and come across as trying to buy them this would be a much smarter approach.

 

[RedViking]

That is actually a good idea, put a roof over it rather than go up,

I think that would be the best thing to do. Or at least the part of the structure that is intruding the site restrictions.

 

[Swa]

I know this is against regulation, but can't you choon the neighbor to look on the bright side: Sounds like he is actually getting a bargain, a real quality wall 'n all. As long as you don't put windows in it. Some okes just see bad in everything.

Why not buy the neighbor's pozzy, sign the relaxation agreement and then flog it onetime? How you think the Guptas did it in 2017?

You're assuming they'd sell.

 

[Osman16]

I know this is against regulation, but can't you choon the neighbor to look on the bright side: Sounds like he is actually getting a bargain, a real quality wall 'n all. As long as you don't put windows in it. Some okes just see bad in everything.

Why not buy the neighbor's pozzy, sign the relaxation agreement and then flog it onetime? How you think the Guptas did it in 2017?

Ha i wish I could buy it, the neighbours are actually not bad people, just upset and i can understand that. I, as contradictory as this may seem consodering the circumstances, am not open to under handedness. It was an error and i want it to be corrected, without ofcourse losing what was put in, which again may be a contradiction, i guess its just very complex. I think the roof rather than going up is a much better option.

 

[Osman16]

Ha i wish I could buy it, the neighbours are actually not bad people, just upset and i can understand that. I, as contradictory as this may seem consodering the circumstances, am not open to under handedness. It was an error and i want it to be corrected, without ofcourse losing what was put in, which again may be a contradiction, i guess its just very complex. I think the roof rather than going up is a much better option.

Also, this way, should i somehow ever do manage to buy the place, i can just take of the roof and go up

 

[Osman16]

I think that would be the best thing to do. Or at least the part of the structure that is intruding the site restrictions.

You are correct. Thank you for your input, this is whatbi was looking for, a possible solution other than the one at hand.

 

[Swa]

Funny story. I know about a guy (really high up) who bought two properties. Now ito the law you can't connect properties so what they did was to build the corridor with door and everything and boarded it up. Once the building inspector left they just removed the boards. The structure is now legal and everything.

There's no easy way to do it in this case but the moral is once it's approved they have no further legal standing.

 

[Osman16]

My phone is for some reason dysfunctional , i do know how to spell and type, seems to have a mind of its own.