Party Wall Act - Urgent Query

[AngleBracket]

I seem to have a party wall act nightmare going on.
Please could anyone that has had a Party Wall Award made by Party Wall Surveyors advise on how the line of build or position for construction of new walls at or near a boundary was defined in their award.

For example:
- By stated measurements from fixed points that would be present before and after the works ?
- By means of a professional survey carried out of the boundary area ?
- By measurements explicitly marked onto drawings within the PWA ?
- By measurements w.r.t. features that will be dug up and removed almost immediately that work starts ?
- in some other way

Very grateful for any and all responses.

 

[Murdochcat]

Have you got an agreement in place? If so best to ask the surveyor

 

[wessex101]

1, 2 and 3. Definitely not 4.

Although to be honest anything that is not astride the boundary it is irrelevant where it is built as long as it doesn't cross the boundary. It could be 1mm or 1000mm it has no bearing on the award.

 

[Murdochcat]

1, 2 and 3. Definitely not 4.

Although to be honest anything that is not astride the boundary it is irrelevant where it is built as long as it doesn't cross the boundary. It could be 1mm or 1000mm it has no bearing on the award.

Not sure i agree with that. The depth of the footings compared to the adjacent house may have a huge bearing

 

[wessex101]

Please could anyone that has had a Party Wall Award made by Party Wall Surveyors advise on how the line of build or position for construction of new walls at or near a boundary was defined in their award.

Not sure i agree with that. The depth of the footings compared to the adjacent house may have a huge bearing

OP appears to be asking about position of walls not depth of foundations.

 

[mrrusty]

I suspect that there is more to this. I wouldn't expect a party wall agreement which is aimed at controlling construction works getting involved in a boundary dispute or relevant to determining a boundary, and I suspect the focus on precise measurements is because there is a boundary dispute, not a party wall dispute.

more info here https://www.peterbarry.co.uk/blog/boundaries-and-the-party-wall-act/

 

[^woody^]

I don't think it's the PW surveyor's role to define the boundary, so it's possible that the award could say something like build the wall to the side of the boundary or centrally on the boundary.

If there are dimensions or demarcation all the better, there are no rules to how locations are defined but there are professional standards from the likes of the RICS if the surveyor is a member.

 

[stevie888]

Is it you that's doing the work and employing the PWS or are you on trhe receiving end from a neighbour. If the latter and you're worried then you are at liberty to employ your own surveyor AT THE NEIGHBOURS COST.

As Rusty says though the PWA is about works that can influence neighbours physically so steel into a party wall, foundations affecting them etc. The work should be being undertaken to a set of drawings which form part of the notice and clearly show the relation of new to existing. The boundary should be on the drawing

 

[wessex101]

Is it you that's doing the work and employing the PWS or are you on trhe receiving end from a neighbour. If the latter and you're worried then you are at liberty to employ your own surveyor AT THE NEIGHBOURS COST.

From the question I would guess it is the adjoining owner as I do not see why the building owner would be concerned about putting the exact setting out dimensions in the award. It sounds to me like someone who wants to control the position of the neighbour's extension.

 

[wessex101]

I don't think it's the PW surveyor's role to define the boundary, so it's possible that the award could say something like build the wall to the side of the boundary or centrally on the boundary.

That sounds like a recipe for future disputes. How can you specify to build against or astride the boundary if you do not specify where the boundary is? Obviously if there are no clear boundary features and the boundary is already in dispute that needs to be settled before the party wall award can be finalised.

At least if you put it in the award, as a legally binding document it would add weight to defend any future boundary disputes. In a line of junction or building astride the boundary case I would say it is essential.

 

[^woody^]

That sounds like a recipe for future disputes. How can you specify to build against or astride the boundary if you do not specify where the boundary is? Obviously if there are no clear boundary features and the boundary is already in dispute that needs to be settled before the party wall award can be finalised.

At least if you put it in the award, as a legally binding document it would add weight to defend any future boundary disputes. In a line of junction or building astride the boundary case I would say it is essential.

Because its not part of the commission as PW surveyor, neither is it part of nor the intention of the Act. There is no authority to redefine boundaries and no appeal process for the parties..

Boundaries are a completely different thing and potentially more onerous legal minefield - with the associated costs and legal process.

 

[mrrusty]

+1 exactly as @^woody^ says. The link from the surveyors I posted above says exactly the same:-

It’s sometimes necessary to put party wall procedures on hold while a boundary dispute is resolved but, as that can be a very time-consuming process, it should be a last resort.

It’s not always necessary to know the precise boundary position to authorise works under the Act. For example, a common boundary related issue is whether the flank wall of an adjoining owner’s rear extension is built up to or astride the boundary. If the building owner wishes to cut a flashing in to that wall, they have a right to do so in both scenarios (under paragraphs 2(2)(f) and (j) of the Act). The notice/award can therefore describe the flashing without commenting on the status of the wall it is being cut in to. In that situation, I’d advocate omitting the boundary line from the award drawings.

Surveyors also have to be careful that a purported boundary dispute has not been manufactured by an adjoining owner to delay works that they object to for other reasons.

 

[wessex101]

Because its not part of the commission as PW surveyor, neither is it part of nor the intention of the Act. There is no authority to redefine boundaries and no appeal process for the parties..

Boundaries are a completely different thing and potentially more onerous legal minefield - with the associated costs and legal process.

We are not talking about "redefining" boundaries. We are talking about marking the position of the extension in relation to existing boundary features and usually an existing party wall. It really isn't that difficult to show a few dimensions to confirm the position of the existing boundary features and party wall. As I stated before this only applies to line of junction and building astride the boundary.

By simply stating the wall is to be "built centrally on the boundary" what does that actually mean? The first thing to happen is the fence is removed and the builder is left to build the wall on a notional line with no defined dimensions. Move on 5 years when the the adjoining owner has sold up and the new owner believes the remaining fence is in the wrong place and therefore the extension is trespassing on their garden. How much easier would it be to produce a copy of the party wall award and say these are the dimensions that were agreed at the time so the extension is not trespassing.

 

[wessex101]

+1 exactly as @^woody^ says. The link from the surveyors I posted above says exactly the same:-

I think you misunderstood the article, that is the problem with Googling random things. It can be misleading to quote articles from firms trying to sell their services rather than direct from the legislation or independent academic sources. Or maybe even quote from your own personal experience?

The article clearly states .......

"Building at the Boundary

New walls either up to or astride the boundary fall within the scope of the Act but how can surveyors authorise such works without knowing where the boundary is?

Sometimes it will be obvious. If there is an original party wall, the boundary will generally be at its centre (careful of “Type B” party walls). Most party walls are approx. 225mm thick + plaster but this can be checked my measuring back from the nearest door/window opening on the two properties that it divides. If you then measure back from the openings to the face of the party wall and transfer those measurement to the external face of the rear wall, the boundary wall be at the midpoint between the two marks.

The set up described above is likely to be shown on the plan of the proposed works, but surveyors will sometimes include a clause in the award requiring the owners (or their representatives) to agree on the position of the boundary prior to the works e.g.:

Prior to constructing the wall described in clause 2(x) of this award, agree the location of the boundary with the adjoining owner(s) and confirm with an indelible mark on the rear wall of the property.

On a related point, boundary fences are temporarily removed to allow a new wall to be built up to the edge of an owner’s land. If the fence is owned by that owner, it will not be reinstated as erecting a fence against a wall is unnecessary. If the fence is owned by the neighbour, and they want to retain it (perhaps to soften the appearance of the new wall), it can be reinstated against the new wall. An owner is not required to keep their extension back from the boundary to make space for a fence."

My response - they say it is usually obvious and easy to establish the position of the boundary and is likely to be shown on the plan. Then they pull the usual surveyors back covering by saying "prior to constructing the wall the location of the boundary should be agreed". But fundamentally it is good practice to show the dimensions on the plan.

 

[^woody^]

We are not talking about "redefining" boundaries. We are talking about marking the position of the extension in relation to existing boundary features and usually an existing party wall. It really isn't that difficult to show a few dimensions to confirm the position of the existing boundary features and party wall. As I stated before this only applies to line of junction and building astride the boundary.

By simply stating the wall is to be "built centrally on the boundary" what does that actually mean? The first thing to happen is the fence is removed and the builder is left to build the wall on a notional line with no defined dimensions. Move on 5 years when the the adjoining owner has sold up and the new owner believes the remaining fence is in the wrong place and therefore the extension is trespassing on their garden. How much easier would it be to produce a copy of the party wall award and say these are the dimensions that were agreed at the time so the extension is not trespassing.

That's what I said in my original post you quoted!

Someone in thread mentioned that this OP sends to relate to a boundary dispute not a straight forward PW matter.