Fire regulations can disrupt, but the neighbor - do not touch

The main thing - do not violate the rights of neighbors

The owner may erect buildings on its summer cottage area, even if they are too close to the border with our neighbors and prevent them. Failure to comply with the minimum distances of fire is not the only reason for demolition. This decision was made the Supreme Court, examining the dispute between the two neighbors in the country.

Content:

• The judicial drama: neighbor against bath owner
• The arguments of the Court: the right to property is not broken
• Planning and construction of the garden, the suburban areas: SP 53.13330.2011
• How should do good neighbors

Neighbor against master bath

This story took place in Bashkortostan: the owner of the suburban area built a bath very close to the site of the neighbor. And this, according to "Rossiyskaya Gazeta", was not just a small summer residence bathhouse, and a two-story building area of ​​60 square meters. The rain water from this bath poured onto a neighbor's land, interfere and simply, humanly, infuriated. These things are considered by many people as an invasion of the personal territory as an attack on property.

Outraged neighbor turned in Ufa district court with a lawsuit, which demanded to oblige a neighbor carry bath. His arguments:

• during the construction of baths have been violated planning regulations;
• Bath was built without a permit;
• bath and the distance between the portion of the neighbor is less than m;
• during rain from a roof to an adjacent portion of the bath water flows, and this can lead to soil disturbance.

According to the plaintiff, all these circumstances create a threat to his life and health.

According to court statistics, gardeners often are suing each other just because of this: they interfere with construction of the neighborhood adjacent to the border area.

The District Court ruled: sauna should remain in place. Neighbor bath owner appealed to the Supreme Court of Bashkiria - there decided that the building should be demolished. The Supreme Court has asked the master bath - and he won, the structure left.

As the court reasoned

Let's see what the court was guided by each instance.

District court: Bath, can not invalidate the structure, since there is no evidence that it violates the "rights and interests" neighbor.

Man built the bath on its own site, so a permit for the construction of buildings is not required (Town Planning Code, article 51).

The Supreme Court of Bashkortostan: construction bath illegally. When erecting buildings infringements.

Re-construction examination found that the bath was built in violation of fire regulations. The minimum distance from the fire to neighboring arbor bath should be 10 meters and is 9.7. Offset from the bath to a neighboring border portion should be at least a meter, and is only 27 cm. (SNP 2.07.01-89).

Therefore, according to the Judicial Board on Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan, sauna "poses a threat to life and health of citizens, violate the rights and legitimate interests of the plaintiff." And yes, it is necessary to carry - on the other the situation is not corrected.

Supreme Court I did not agree with the findings of the appeal.

Here's how it reflected the high court. Land use of suburban area - the land settlements. Permitted use - for private housing. according to Article 263 of the Civil Code, The owner of the site without a permit can build, rebuild and demolition of buildings, more importantly, to comply with the building regulations and requirements "of the target appointment of land."

Claims that are not associated with deprivation of possession, can be met, if the plaintiff is able to prove that the defendant's actions violated his right to property. In this case, the court must determine whether or not complied with during the construction planning regulations and rules. If not complied with, even slightly, and ownership of the plaintiff violated, it is the basis for the satisfaction of the claim.

That is, the neighbor has to prove that the construction of baths in 27 centimeters from the fence is not only carried out with violation of the rules, but also violated his right to possession and use of land. Construction examination revealed a violation of fire regulations. But the high court noted that a local company has made this conclusion on the basis of the old building codes.

These rules are no longer valid or are optional.

Violation in the construction of the Supreme Court called conjectural. But this is not important: the previous instance is not found there if the neighbor any significant obstacles in the use and possession of their land after the bath was built.

Therefore, the Supreme Court has put the bullet in this dispute: "Since the demolition of the object is an extreme measure, and correct violations should be proportionate to violation and inflict disproportionate losses, then a minor violation, as the sole basis for the demolition, can certainly testify to the impossibility of preservation the buildings".

Minor violation can not be the sole basis for the demolition of buildings.

The problem for owners

Construction of buildings in violation of the joint venture - a fairly common occurrence and garden areas and in cottage settlements. For many homeowners it is a serious problem.

Lorabel

Participant FORUMHOUSE

It should be 3 m to 1 m and houses for hozpostroek. In fact the new houses and extensions – all on the border, the walls are on the fence line. After a certain number of years, probably will start something terrible, and there is nothing, if the house is not used as a commercial property ...

Jul-julia

Participant FORUMHOUSE

In many villages of the CHT and so built and all live. It is unlikely that with them someone, and that -That will do, as long as you do not interfere with his neighbor, because the state needs taxes for the land and the registered home, so now everything is done for the type of people.

Recall what should be the minimum distance between the boundary portion of adjacent sanitary conditions of the current SP 53.13330.2011:

• from residential buildings (or home) - 3 m;
• from construction to maintain sheep and poultry - 4 m;
• from other buildings - 1 m;
• from tall tree trunks - 4 m, sredneroslye - 2 m;
• from the bush - 1 m.

Due to the fact that not all comply with these distances, complicated life neighbors. One participant FORUMHOUSE told me that a neighbor's construction broke icicles roof on her garage, another forumchanin generally at a loss: the neighbors on all sides lined up in such a way that compliance with the joint venture it can build at only shed.

Putting the building very close to the neighbor's fence, saving 70 centimeters square, and at the same time just spit on the interests of neighbors. Of course, the major "barriers to the use and ownership of land" that is not created well, think they will have to move the alpine hill on which will drain the water from your bath. Transplant the sun-loving perennials, remove the flower bed. All this nonsense, which, of course, are not experiences, expertise and payment of court costs. Man with healthy nerves, most likely, it just does not pay attention.

But neighbors in the country - it is not the neighbors of the apartment building. We do not sit in cheloveinik cells, cut off from each other lobbies and iron doors, we are members of the community, and we live in a common space. And it will be much more comfortable and more correct if the neighbors will respect the legitimate interests of each other.

In this regard, the Russian Federation Supreme Court's decision in this story leaves some ambiguous feeling. And you? Who do you support, baths builder or his neighbor? A court decision seems to you the most fair? Do I have to do to comply with the joint venture, or they are for wimps?

Please share your thoughts in the comments - this issue deserves serious discussion.

On FORUMHOUSE you'll find a full explanation of protivoprozharnym standards. The portal contains all Building codes and regulations for construction. Our article explains why objects can now build private housing without permission. You can join the discussion this law. Placed on the beautiful construction site can be in compliance with the joint venture: our video talks about the members of our portal, built on acres of its full architectural studio to the museum.

Subscribe to the channel to join FORUMHOUSETo know not only the theory, but also practice!