Party wall act and footing depth

[tony1851]

An interesting case - thanks.

(I don't like the bit where the judge states that the defendant should not be allowed to dispute the evidence, purely on the grounds that he has ignored the statutory requirements - a complete shifting of the burden of proof.

quote:

'if it can be shown that the damage which has occurred is the sort of damage which one may expect to occur from the nature of the works that have been carried out... ...he should not be allowed to obtain forensic advantage by his own failure to comply with the statutory requirements ... ...a court should be prepared to take a reasonably robust approach to causation...')

 

[Nakajo]

Agreed. Nevertheless THIS case serves as judicial precedent. Beware.

 

[AronSearle]

I'm guessing, but I would suspect that approach is taken to keep costs down.

The more experts are allowed to be involved, the more costs explode, and it becomes much more of a game regarding who can 'afford' to win the case. Typically the one doing the extension is the one that can afford to win that game, if someone has ignored the 'law' why give them the opportunity to play that game.

 

[tony1851]

I agree that it looks like a cost-saving exercise on the part of the judge, but still believe it to be a poor decision.

The judge stated;

'if it can be shown that the damage which has occurred is the sort of damage which one may expect to occur from the nature of the works that have been carried out...'

My question would be: how would the judge himself know that the damage was caused by the defendant's building work?

I've not read the case, but would presume that the plaintif brought in an expert witness (an SE perhaps?) to give evidence and that the judge came to his conclusion on the basis of that evidence.

In that case, it seems to me unfair that the defendant could not be allowed to call his own expert witness, so that the judge could consider both sides, and only then decide the issue.

In this case, it seems the defendant was being punished (financially) for not using the statutory procedure, a dubious approach IMO.

 

[Nakajo]

It's worth noting that this was a Court of Appeal decision, and both parties had presented expert witnesses in the lower courts

 

[sambotc]

Hi all,

Thanks for the replies I did not see. All a little bit over my head if i'm honest.

Anyway, I have today dug a test hole as recommended. I have some photo's and would appreciate your input.

The distance from the top of the existing concrete footing to the finished floor level internally is approx 800mm, or 750mm to the ground level outside. Am I right in syaing the 900mm is trench depth prior to concrete, and from what point?

Untitled

• sambotc
• 14 Mar 2015
• 1

Presuming the concrete in 100mm + deep, am I right in saying the existing footings (and subsequently the terrace neighbours footings) are not going to be an issue with regards to digging below for new single storey extension footings?

Thanks in advance

 

[jeds]

Just what you wanted to find. Your new extension needs to be minimum 900mm deep and either the same depth as your house or deeper. It would have been an issue if your house foundation was shallow - i.e. 600 or 700mm - because your extension would have been deeper and therefore deeper than the adjoining house, which would then have required a party wall notice.

But it isn't. The extension foundation can be the same depth as your house - and adjoining house - without having to go deeper and without having to serve party wall notices. So crack on.

 

[sambotc]

Thanks for the reply.

Could you clarify, is the 900mm from bottom of trench to finished floor level or to natural ground level?

The party fence wall issue still lingers as the existing wall with the troublesome neighbour may cause issues. Currently, behind the femce I put up is a 1000mm high singe block boundary wall sat on an existing concrete path from the council build. You can see the pier on my side.


How close can I build up to this existing wall? Ideally I would like to knock it down and build a new wall which also makes the boundary, but I suspect I won't get them to accept.

My next best alternative is to build as close to the wall as possible.

If I was to dig the footings myself what thickness of concrete should I be working to?

Appreciate the help.

Untitled

• sambotc
• 16 Mar 2015
• 1

 

[jeds]

is the 900mm from bottom of trench to finished floor level or to natural ground level?

Natural ground level or made up ground level.

How close can I build up to this existing wall? Ideally I would like to knock it down and build a new wall which also makes the boundary, but I suspect I won't get them to accept.

My next best alternative is to build as close to the wall as possible.

You said it. knock it down is best - if not build as close as you can.

Minimum thickness of concrete for a 600 wide foundation with 300mm thick walls is 150mm - but I'd go for 200mm.

 

[sambotc]

So does the party wall act not come into force providing I don't knock the existing wall down, ie I could leave a 10mm gap and not require a party wall agreement? The footings might be the only issue I guess? Can i dig below this party wall fence footings without the agreement?


Thanks again, very helpful.