first mate

EG, No if you are out with your dog and your dogs crosses a road, either with you offlead or on its own off lead, you are breaking the law- presumbaly the idea is that offlead dogs have no place on a public highway. I ceertainly understand your anxiety about offlead dogs coming at you and your dog. One tip is to always keep some high value treats, like a little pack of cheese cubes (you can chop them up yourself). If you see a strange dog approiaching offlead simply throw a handful of cheese cubes away and in front of you and hopefully the dog will focus on scoffing those while you cross the road and put as much distance as you can between you and the offlead dog. The other tactic, if you can't get away, is to draw yourself up to your full height, put your hand out in front of you like a policeman's stop sign and tell the dog to go away, or to sit . Obviously try to put yourself between your dog and the other dog. Don't be aggressive just be calm and assertive.

It is my unjderstanding that in law the issue is the behaviour of the dog rather than if it is on or off a lead. Bizarrely, a dog that was on a lead but managed to viciously attacked a dog off a lead might render the owner holding the lead liable. It is an anomaly that needs sorting and I agree we need legislation to make having a dog on lead on the street mandatory and not just subject to bye laws. However, the two dogs you describe are clearly not under control as they moved away from their owners. If the dogs jumped up at you they might render their owners liable under the DDA if you felt intimidated or under attack from those dogs. What is little known is that while it may be lawful to walk a controlled dog offlead, you are not allowed to cross a public highway with your dog offlead. The problem I think is the definition of 'control', but a dog being on lead is not proof of control per se, though it is likely to be a mitigating factor.

Assuming your dog was seen by a vet to have the wound cleaned - and it is always best to make sure, don't just leave it- I'd send your neighbour the bill. If you had witnesses you could think about legal action. People like this make me furious, it is so irresponsible. Moreover, this staffie owner has clearly demonstrated that their dog is not under control in a public place. You are right, having done it once it is more likely to do it again and the next dog may not come off so lightly.

I am told by a number of extremely stressed friends within the 'system' at Director level, that the damage (and damage is the word) is irrevocable.

Hi James, Do you know for how much longer the double yellows along one stretch of Melbourne Grove will be in place ofr? The work seems to have finsihed now.

David S, You seem to suggest that a neighbour would have to accept some loss of light- so long as it does not exceed a certain amount of loss- is this correct and how is the 'percentage' value calculated? In two of the cases I know of the loss of light was great and the outlook onto a high expanse of brick wall, only 4-5 ft from the kitchen side window, was depressing and oppressive, with the kitchen cast into constant gloom. You say it has nothing to do with shadow- is it the case that the infill you designed does not cast a longer shadow than any part of the original house formerly? I am not saying this could not happen but I am intersted to know if additional shadow has been completely avoided in your case, so that there is no loss of light? What is your view about those who build out both along the outrigger with an infill extension as well as onto it, as in a large loft conversion? I'm sure you would agree that the overall shadow cast, as well as the loss of light, would be considerable. In the cases I refer to each had an infill as well as loft extension, both building up to and onto the outrigger- they look awful too.

I can undersdtand why Louisa was peeved too. The buggy owners tutted because she didn't ask them to move and would possibly have tutted if she had done so. Sometimes, you don't want to have to ask people to move, you want them to pick up on the bleedin' obvious.

I'm wondering where this plentiful supply of succulent East Dulwich owls is? It'd take a brave and extraordinarily agile cat to catch one. I've never heard of anyone leaving the toilet lid open for their cat to sup from. Overall this thread is a bit of a hoot!

It looks like there may be a few cases launched for right to light/loss of light too.

Cam123, the cases I know of are both single-fronted terraces with, as you say, narrow side returns. Effectively the wall to the extension is as little as 4 -5 feet from the neighbouring property; the properties with side extensions also have loft extensions which take light- the overall effect is incredibly oppressive, the neighbours have lost whatever sense of space there was. Having looked briefly at the new regs, it seems that the rationale behind the new PD is to turn unused retail units into dwellings and to provide more homes for our burgeoning population- unfortunately however, it also gives carte balnche to more of the above.

gerry , Again, so sorry.

Yes the SNF team is a good idea. I'm not suggesting thsi is the case here but there have been reports of nasty things happening to dogs in other parts of the country, so it is good that local police at least know this might be the case. I'm guessing that as the dog was heard by a neighbout in the early hours of the morning that you must have been out? Were you broken in to for the dog to be able to get outside the house on his own? Was he outside and possibly taken from your garden? Anyway, I hope you get some answers, the collar just seems odd- especially bits missing.

gerry, How horrible- this must be extremely distressing for you and I hope you are able to find out what has happened. It is not a nice thought, but I wondered if you has considered a veterinary autopsy which might at least help determine the cause of death. That might give some pointers. Have you reported this to the police? The collar strikes me as very odd. Again, I am so sorry, please let us know if you find out more.

LM, that is really useful- thanks.

LM, Don't know height but ceratinly higher than the 7ft'ish fence they had there before. John K, I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that it is impossible to devise an extension that would not affect the neighbour, or that I must be mistaken in suggesting that the impact I perceived was negative?

LM, thanks for the detail, I shall take a look. I remain dubious because, as I said, I know of two cases where work has been done and I have senn for myself the before and after impact on the neighbours- definitely less light and definite loss of outlook- I was simply amazed that planners had okayed it.

LM, Just to clarify, and you may not know the answers, do these light studies show that there is absolutely no impact on the neighbour from a side return infill terrace extension, or is it about degrees of shadow? Additionally, does any of this depend on the design of the extension, that is sloping or flat roof, material used, slate or glass? Who does the light studies do you have any sources for your assertions - I'm not being picky or prickly, I just wonder if you happen to know?

LM, I meant the prospect of an automatic right to extend out to the back by 6m is rather worrying because of the inevitable effect on those next door- that is if I have understood this correctly? I also wonder how many of those who have had this sort of work done offer for their neighbour's property (relevant paths, windows etc..) to be properly cleaned at their expense, when building works have finished. It seems to me that this is a courtesy that should be a matter of course. If Anna is still around, just as a matter if interest what height is the actual boundary/party wall with your neighbour, before it slopes up into glass?

Jeremy, I don't think you can refuse a party wall agreement, if you don't sign up then you automatically go into dispute and party wall surveyors are called in to sort it out; because the party wall is jointly owned you cannot refuse as such. I stand to be corrected though by others who know more about planning. As for the right to object, well if it's PD the right to object may not really help- I guess it's a bit like MP's expenses, those who 'err' may be strictly legal but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. 6m is approx 19 ft, this added on to an existing 6m kitchen , plus extension to the side, makes for a huge space- that would surely run parallel to a significant stretch of the neighbour's garden? Most terraces have quite narrow gardens and if there is a also a loft conversion I cannot see how there would not cause an increase in the amount of shadow thrown.

Jeremy, Oh yes, people should be able to reconfigure their home in whichever way they choose within the orginal building footprint, it's just that seriously extending the footprint of the building as well as the overall height may have a nasty knock-on effect on neighbouring homes. Specifically, where terraces are concerned, it is quite difficult to increase the footprint without affecting your neighbour- the key point is whether they are okay with it or not and to what degree there should be give and take. I don't like the attitude that goes: I want this, I think I can probably swing it within the rules, and the neighbours will just have to like it or lump it. Anna27, I'm sure your home is lovely and it sounds as though you compromised and simply did not go all out for as much space as you could possibly grab. It's great that your neighbours are happy. If neighbours are consulted and are happy then one can ask no more. It's the situations where neighbours are deeply unhappy and where no comprises are forthcoming that concerns me, and such cases certainly do exist.

Red devil said, "Most people just want a big @#$%& off open plan living/dining/kitchen space..." I think you have the heart of the matter and don't forget the light, airy feel, it's all about the space and the light.

Penguin68, I think that if there is something on the table for the neighbour whereby they also gain that is altogether different. Sadly, in the cases I have observed the gain is all one-sided with significant losses on the other. Add to this the imposition of major building works, the noise, the dust, and mess, a small terrace owner will have to endure right up close to their own kitchen. Again, the owners of the homes being extended did not offer any cleaning for their neighbours property etc..- pretty poor, don't you think? Again, I stress the irony that objectors are castigated for 'moaning about light' but the USP of the extensions and conversions is all about light, light, light.

I have seen some horrendous, stalinist loft conversions, less so side extensions. I'm sure that most people go for the best they can afford. I also do understand that people want more space and more light, but please do honestly consider the impact on your neighbour. In one of the instances I am aware of, young professionals new to a terrace house completely bulldozed the elderly couple living next door- they were going to have what they wanted and the resaonable concerns of their neighbours were simply ignored. It caused the older folk a lot of stress and heartache. Part of me felt that if the youngsters wanted and needed a significantly larger house why hadn't they bought one in the first place? In my view, it would be the height of selfishness to go ahead with building work in the full knowledge that the quality of life you gain by so doing reduces that of your neighbour. Terraces are so close that realistically we should always consider the impact we have on those next to us.

igline1, Truer to say that most people are obsessed with light. Do you hear anyone who has had any sort of extensive building work talking about it in terms other than as a light and airy space? Generally people are after two things, more space and more light. It is all very well those who have had this work done to say that it has had no negative impact on their neighbours (well they would see it that way wouldn't they ) I do know of people that have had their quality of living seriously diminished by these extensions -often elderly as it happens. Anna27, Obviously I don't know the distance between your home and your neighbours along the side return, but some terraces are quite close together there and obviously any new structure that is very much closer as well as higher will take light both from the kitchen and from the rear window of the neighbouring sitting room. The view from the bedroom that overlooks the side return will be pretty dismal too. It is also horribly oppressive as there is less of a sense of space and a feeling of being closed in. In this sense the extension can be a massive imposition on your neighbour. I visited a friend's house where this had been done, together with a loft conversion, and the effect on them was quite appalling. The extension had also been built in ugly red brick, which was totally out of keeping with a victorian terrace- as was the horrendous loft conversion. Natch,the neighbours who had built the eyesore of a wall as part of their grand design it did not have to look at it day in day out. You say that you think your neighbours are doing the same thing. It occurs to me that such would be the loss of light that the only way of getting it back is to extend in a similar way- of course there will be those who cannot afford to. It's kind of survival of the fittest I guess.

I agree, not all extensions will involve a loss of light to the neighbour, but many will, epsecially if there is also a loft conversion as well. I know of at least two different cases where people have been very distressed at their neighbours complete lack of consideration for the impact their extension would have on them. One elderly couple had their kitchen plunged into permament gloom by one of these. There is a big difference between a 6ft fence and then a sense of some space and light above and a massive brick wall of possibly double the height- which is what they ended up having to look at. Who in their right mind would want that?!